Fetch a consolidated overview for up to five chosen Blackboard courses, covering announcements, content roots, activities, and your grades while keeping partial results per section.
Panorama de 1 a 5 cursos elegidos: anuncios, raíz de contenidos, actividades y notas propias. Conserva resultados parciales por sección.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| courseIds | 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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds that partial results are preserved per section, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, no information is given about authentication requirements, rate limits, or how failures are surfaced.
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, compact sentence that front-loads the scope ('1 a 5 cursos') and lists the included sections, with no redundancy. It is efficient, though the partial-result note is slightly tailed and could be clearer.
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 batch, read-only overview tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description conveys enough to understand the scope. Missing are explicit parameter guidance (courseIds format and limits) and differentiation from similar single-course or listing siblings.
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 coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the courseIds parameter, its required status, the array constraint (1–5 items), or the expected ID pattern. With the schema providing no descriptions and the description silent, the parameter is effectively undocumented in natural language.
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 ('Panorama de 1 a 5 cursos') and enumerates what it includes (anuncios, raíz de contenidos, actividades, notas propias). It is understandable as a multi-course overview tool. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like blackboard_get_course_overview or blackboard_list_courses, weakening differentiation.
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 mentions '1 a 5 cursos elegidos' and partial result retention, implying batch use, but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or guidance on choosing this over blackboard_get_course_overview or blackboard_list_courses. Usage remains inferred at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.