Locate Moodle sections and activities by name and return their identifiers and links; use it to find items like week 7 workshops, not to search file contents.
按名称找 Moodle 章节和活动，返回活动标识和链接；搜文件正文用 search_content。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 结果数，默认15，最多50 | |
| query | Yes | 章节或活动名，如 week 7 workshop | |
| course | No | 课程号；省略=跟踪的课程 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile, and the description adds the useful fact that results are identifiers plus links. It says nothing about matching behavior (fuzzy vs exact name match), ranking, or what happens when nothing matches, which is the remaining behavioral burden.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short clauses, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the alternative-tool pointer is appended last. No filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
A simple read-only search with fully documented params and a stated return shape; an agent can call it correctly from this. Minor incompleteness on result ordering, empty-result behavior, and whether matching is substring or exact.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and all three params (query, course, limit) have descriptions with defaults and examples, so the schema carries parameter semantics. The description adds no extra meaning about query syntax or course scoping beyond that baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (search/find by name), resource (Moodle sections and activities), and return payload (activity identifier and link). It explicitly contrasts with search_content for file bodies, though it does not distinguish itself from other siblings like search_moodle_forum or list_moodle_assignments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Clear routing rule: use this for section/activity names, use search_content for file contents. No guidance on when to prefer the list_* siblings (list_moodle_due, list_moodle_assignments) over this name search, which leaves one meaningful gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.