itmo_get_queue_appointmentsRetrieve appointments in the ITMO electronic queue for student services like dean's office or student office, with an option to include past appointments.
Appointments in the ITMO electronic queue (dean's office, student office, etc.).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_past | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds only domain context (dean's office, student office) but no behavioral traits beyond that, such as pagination, freshness, or how include_past affects results.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
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 tool with annotations covering safety, the description is sparse. It omits any guidance on the include_past parameter and does not clarify what the returned appointments represent or whether they are user-specific.
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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter include_past is never mentioned. Although the name is somewhat intuitive, the description fails to clarify what 'past' entails or its default behavior.
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 names a specific resource (appointments) within a clear domain (ITMO electronic queue, dean's office, student office). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like schedules and grades, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as required permissions or account context. The description is purely a label of the resource.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.