Fetch grade columns and maximum scores for a Blackboard course using its course ID to review grading setup; these columns may not include syllabus weightings.
Columnas de calificaciones y puntajes máximos. No contiene necesariamente las ponderaciones del sílabo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful content caveat: the result does not necessarily include syllabus weightings, warning the agent not to assume grading weights are present. It says nothing about return shape or pagination, so it stays at a moderate level.
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 short sentences with no filler, and the primary content claim is front-loaded ahead of the caveat. It is efficient, though borderline terse for a tool whose schema is undocumented.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and one important limitation. It is adequate but leaves the only parameter undocumented and does not describe the shape of the returned columns.
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 single courseId parameter has only a regex pattern, no prose. The description supplies no information about the parameter's expected format or source, so it fails to compensate for the schema 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 identifies the resource precisely: grade columns and their maximum scores ('Columnas de calificaciones y puntajes máximos'), which separates it from sibling tools like get_grade_categories, get_grades, and list_grade_periods. It lacks an explicit verb, but the noun phrase is unambiguous about what is returned.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives. The caveat about syllabus weightings hints at a boundary with syllabus-related tools, but it never names the alternative tool or the condition under which an agent should prefer it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.