Retrieve a course's folder and content structure from Blackboard, including paths, types, and truncation notices, to navigate materials and plan access.
Estructura recursiva acotada de carpetas y contenidos, con rutas, tipos y avisos de truncamiento.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| courseId | Yes | ||
| maxDepth | No | ||
| maxItems | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses that the structure is recursive and bounded, includes paths and types, and emits truncation warnings when limits are hit.
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 that packs the core contract without waste. Every phrase adds information: recursive structure, bounded scope, paths, types, and truncation warnings.
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 three-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description leaves parameter meanings and usage conditions unexplained. It sketches the return shape but an agent would still not know how to supply courseId or how maxDepth and maxItems behave.
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 description does not name or explain courseId, maxDepth, or maxItems. 'Acotada' hints that some bounding parameters exist, but it gives no detail about courseId's required pattern or how the depth/item limits affect results.
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 resource and output shape: a bounded recursive structure of folders and contents with paths, types, and truncation warnings. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly name a sibling tool to distinguish it from alternatives like list_contents or export_course_outline.
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 description provides no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not say when to choose this tool over blackboard_list_contents, blackboard_get_content, or blackboard_export_course_outline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.