itmo_get_sport_statusRetrieve your ITMO University sport status, including semester points, enrolled sections, upcoming lessons, enrollment attempts, debt, and medical health group.
Physical education (sport) summary: points this semester, enrolled sections, upcoming enrolled lessons for 14 days, enrollment attempts, debt and medical health group.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral detail beyond that: the upcoming-lessons window is fixed at 14 days, and the response aggregates several distinct data domains. It says nothing about data freshness, permissions, or failure modes, which is acceptable given the annotation coverage.
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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource and then enumerates the returned content; nothing is padded or repeated. It is a sentence fragment rather than prose, but for a zero-arg summary tool that is efficient rather than sloppy.
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 input schema fields and no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so by listing six distinct content areas plus the 14-day window. Minor gaps remain: ambiguous terms like 'debt' and 'medical health group' are not explained, and there is no indication of result format or size.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema-based baseline of 4 applies; there are no argument semantics to document. The description's field list usefully doubles as a preview of the result shape, which is the only semantic detail available for a no-arg tool.
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?
States a specific resource and verb-equivalent (a 'Physical education (sport) summary') and enumerates exactly what it covers: points, enrolled sections, upcoming lessons, enrollment attempts, debt, and medical health group. This differentiates it from sibling sport tools like itmo_get_sport_points_history or itmo_get_sport_schedule, though it never names them explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: the enumerated contents signal an overview/status tool to call when a full picture is wanted rather than a single slice. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the related sport siblings, and no note that it is parameterless so no scoping is possible.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.