Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
enauczanie-mcp

enauczanie-mcp

by Zambrzyckii
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

download_file

Downloads a course file from eNauczanie PG Moodle to the local downloads folder using its file URL and course ID, then returns the saved path.

Instructions

Download a course file (fileurl from get_course_contents) into the local downloads directory and return its path.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "fileurl": "<fileurl>",
      "course_id": "<course_id>"
    },
    "name": "download_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileurlYes
course_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does disclose the key behavior: it writes a file into the local downloads directory and returns the path. It omits overwrite/collision behavior, size limits, and whether downloads persist across sessions, which matters for a filesystem-mutating tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, zero filler, with the action and destination front-loaded and the parameter provenance parentheticalized. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple 2-param tool the description covers the return value and download destination well. However, one of two required parameters is completely undocumented and mutation edge cases (existing file with same name) are unaddressed, leaving a notable gap for an unannotated write tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains fileurl's origin (output of get_course_contents), which is genuinely useful, but course_id — a required parameter — gets no explanation at all in either the schema or the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Download') and resource ('a course file'), plus side effect destination (local downloads directory) and return (its path). It also anchors the fileurl parameter to the sibling tool get_course_contents, making it distinguishable from the read-only metadata siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Makes the prerequisite explicit: fileurl must come from get_course_contents, which gives the agent a clear call-order. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative (e.g. fetching raw content without persisting) is stated, keeping it short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools