Export a private Markdown summary of course dates and possible syllabi for a Blackboard course within a chosen date range; it does not download documents or confirm the current syllabus.
Guarda un resumen Markdown privado de fechas y posibles sílabos. No descarga el documento ni garantiza que sea el sílabo vigente.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| since | Yes | ||
| until | Yes | ||
| courseId | Yes | ||
| outputDir | No | ||
| allowPartial | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover the safety profile (write, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), and the description adds real value beyond them: the output is a private Markdown summary, it does not download the underlying document, and it does not guarantee the current syllabus. These are non-obvious behavioral caveats. It still omits what the write does to existing files or where output lands.
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?
Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the caveats following. No filler, though the negative clauses could be structured more crisply.
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?
A five-parameter write tool with no output schema and no annotation detail on file handling needs more: where the Markdown is written, what allowPartial does, and the courseId format are all missing. The description is too thin for the tool's complexity.
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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, but it only loosely gestures at dates and syllabi. courseId format, outputDir, and allowPartial are entirely unexplained in both schema and description, leaving half the parameters opaque.
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 verb (Guarda) and resource (resumen Markdown de fechas y posibles sílabos), and explicitly clarifies it is not a downloader, which distinguishes it from download/find-syllabus siblings. It is slightly vague about what 'fechas' are summarized, keeping it from a 5.
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?
The caveat 'No descarga el documento' implicitly signals this is not a replacement for download tools, and 'no garantiza que sea el sílabo vigente' warns of output reliability. However, no sibling is named and no explicit when-to-use condition is given, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.