Retrieve a Blackboard group's description, availability, and published configuration by course and group ID. Does not verify membership or change enrollment.
Descripción, disponibilidad y configuración publicada de un grupo accesible. No acredita pertenencia ni cambia la inscripción.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| groupId | 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that the result is limited to published configuration and does not assert membership, which is modest extra context but no detail on access requirements or staleness of the data.
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 no filler; the positive scope is front-loaded and the caveat follows. Efficient, though extremely terse for a tool with zero parameter documentation.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should ideally hint at what the returned configuration contains, and the two required identifier parameters are unexplained. It is adequate but leaves notable gaps for an agent to fill.
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 both courseId and groupId carry only a regex pattern with no textual explanation. The description does not mention either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the documentation 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?
Names the resource (a group) and the specific facets returned: description, availability, and published configuration, plus the access qualifier 'accesible'. It is clearly distinct from siblings like list_groups or get_my_enrollment, though the verb itself is implicit rather than stated.
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 closing clause 'No acredita pertenencia ni cambia la inscripción' implicitly scopes the tool away from membership/enrollment lookups, which is useful negative guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over list_groups or list_group_sets, 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.