wilma_gradebookRetrieve completed courses and grades by subject, including term and school-year report card grades and completion dates, for a specified student or all children.
Completed courses and grades (Suoritukset) by subject, including term and school-year (report card) grades, with completion dates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| student | No | Child's name or student number. Omit to include every child on the account. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds content scope (what data types appear in the response) but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether historical vs. current-term data is included.
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?
One compact sentence with no filler, front-loading the most identifying detail (completed courses and grades by subject). It only loses a point because the core distinguishing information — how this differs from wilma_grades — is absent rather than just brief.
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?
With no output schema, the description does carry the burden of describing return content, and it partially does so (term/school-year grades, completion dates). But for a tool sitting beside a name-adjacent sibling, omitting the distinction leaves the agent without enough to select confidently.
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 the single 'student' parameter is well documented in the schema itself (name or student number, omit for all children). The description adds no parameter guidance, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
The description enumerates the resource's contents (completed courses, grades by subject, term and school-year report-card grades, completion dates), which is meaningful detail. However, the sibling list contains wilma_grades, a near-identical name, and the description offers no way to tell the two apart. A specific verb is also absent — it reads as a data label rather than 'returns the gradebook for a student'.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling (notably wilma_grades) to prefer. The agent must infer the distinction from names alone, which is risky given the overlapping vocabulary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.