Retrieve a specific Blackboard attempt using its course, column, and attempt IDs, while respecting account permissions.
Consulta un intento ya existente mediante sus IDs; respeta los permisos de la cuenta.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| columnId | Yes | ||
| courseId | Yes | ||
| attemptId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral note, 'respeta los permisos de la cuenta', which flags an authorization constraint, but says nothing about failure modes or scope of the openWorldHint.
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 compact sentence with the action and lookup key front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.
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 output schema, three undocumented required parameters, and no annotation coverage of return shape, the description is too thin for a tool whose entire contract is the three opaque IDs. It should at least state what an attempt is and what the call returns.
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 all three parameters (courseId, columnId, attemptId) are undocumented in the schema. The description only says lookups happen 'mediante sus IDs' without mapping which IDs are required or noting the '^_\d+_\d+$' format constraint, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 states a specific verb ('Consulta') and resource ('un intento ya existente'), and 'mediante sus IDs' clarifies the lookup key. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling blackboard_list_attempts.
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 phrase 'ya existente' hints that this is for an already-created attempt rather than listing attempts, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative such as blackboard_list_attempts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.