Retrieve current-account attendance for a Universidad del Pacífico Blackboard course, filtered by session IDs. Missing records return null and inaccessible sources are flagged.
Asistencia de la cuenta actual, filtrada por los IDs de sesiones de este curso. Un registro ausente se muestra como null, no como falta. Señala fuentes inaccesibles.
| 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=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: absence is represented as null rather than an absence mark, and it notes that inaccessible sources are flagged—information not in the schema or annotations.
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 three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then behavioral notes. It is efficient with no obvious filler, though slightly fragmented across clauses.
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 read-only tool with no output schema and one parameter, the description covers key behavioral nuances (null for missing, inaccessible sources). However, it omits parameter format details and usage context relative to siblings, leaving some gaps for correct invocation.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0% and one required parameter (courseId) having a pattern but no textual explanation, the description should compensate. It only mentions filtering by session IDs without explaining that courseId determines the session set or describing the required pattern format, leaving a 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 states a specific verb+resource: retrieving the current account's attendance filtered by this course's session IDs. It is reasonably clear, though slightly less direct due to the phrasing 'Asistencia de la cuenta actual' and lacks explicit differentiation from siblings like export_attendance.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as export_attendance or how the session IDs are obtained. Usage is implied by the filter description but no when/when-not conditions or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.