wilma_gradesRetrieve recent school exam grades for one child or all children on the account. Set a limit to return only the newest results.
Recent exam grades.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| 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 safety is covered. The description adds only the word "recent", which is never defined (last week? last term?), and says nothing about default limit, ordering, or whether results are paginated.
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?
It is a single short fragment with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than structured. There is no front-loaded guidance to speak of because there is essentially no content.
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?
For a two-parameter tool with half its schema undocumented and no output schema, the description leaves the agent without enough to call it confidently: no recency window, no default/limit behavior, no indication of what a grade record contains or how grades are ordered.
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?
The student parameter is documented in the schema, but limit has no description anywhere and schema coverage is only 50%. The description contributes nothing about either parameter, not even whether "recent" relates to the limit cap of 100.
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 name and description identify a resource (exam grades) with a vague qualifier "recent", but no verb or scope detail. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling wilma_gradebook, which an agent would reasonably consider for the same data.
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 call this instead of wilma_gradebook or wilma_upcoming_exams, nor any precondition. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.