Combine published activity due dates with course calendar events for a specified date range (up to 112 days) to build an agenda; it does not determine pending submissions.
Combina vencimientos publicados de actividades con eventos de calendario en un intervalo de hasta 112 días. No determina tareas pendientes de entrega.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| since | Yes | ||
| until | Yes | ||
| courseId | 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 readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it merges two data sources and enforces a hard 112-day interval cap. It still omits pagination, return shape, and what happens if the interval is exceeded.
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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and followed by the key scope limitation. No filler, though it trades brevity for missing detail elsewhere.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description does usefully sketch the returned content (due dates + calendar events) and the interval bound. But with 0% schema coverage and no annotations explaining returns, the under-documented parameters and absent output/format details leave clear gaps.
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 parameter meaning. It only implicitly conveys that since/until form the interval (with a 112-day max); it says nothing about the courseId format or the required date-time syntax, leaving most of the three required parameters unexplained.
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+resource: it combines published activity due dates with calendar events. It also bounds the operation (up to 112 days) and scopes it negatively ('no determina tareas pendientes de entrega'). However, it never names or distinguishes itself from the several sibling agenda/calendar tools (get_multi_course_agenda, list_calendar, export_course_agenda).
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 negative 'no determina tareas pendientes' hints at a use boundary, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no alternative named. An agent cannot tell from this text when to pick this over blackboard_list_calendar or blackboard_get_multi_course_agenda.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.