wilma_upcoming_examsRetrieve upcoming exams with subject, date, and study topic for one child or all children on the account.
Upcoming exams with subject, date and topic (what to study).
| 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the shape of the result (subject, date, topic) but says nothing about ordering, default result count, or how the limit behaves when omitted.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal density.
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 simple read-only list tool with two optional params and no output schema, the description covers what is returned. It is still incomplete on default limit/pagination and on the fact that omitting 'student' spans all children, which is only visible in the schema.
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 only 50%: 'student' is documented in the schema but 'limit' has no description anywhere. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it does nothing to compensate for the undocumented limit or explain default behavior when student is omitted.
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?
Names the resource (upcoming exams) and enumerates the returned fields (subject, date, topic), which tells an agent exactly what it gets. It is distinguishable from siblings like wilma_grades or wilma_schedule by the 'exam' focus, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.
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 versus wilma_schedule, wilma_homework, or wilma_grades, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The parenthetical '(what to study)' hints at purpose but gives no routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.