Retrieve your enrollment, role, and published conditions for a Blackboard course. Use it to check current account access; it does not certify academic enrollment or show payments or credits.
Inscripción, rol y condiciones publicadas de la cuenta actual en un curso de Blackboard. No certifica matrícula académica ni consulta pagos o créditos.
| 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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a scope caveat (not an academic registration record, no payments/credits), which is genuinely useful for interpreting results, but says nothing about auth requirements or return shape.
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, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the scope exclusion. No filler; could be slightly clearer about courseId but is well structured.
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 single-parameter, no-output-schema read tool with full annotation coverage, the description adequately states what is returned and what is out of scope. The only gap is courseId semantics, which the schema pattern partially covers.
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 carries only a regex pattern, so the description must compensate. It only implies 'un curso', adding no format, source, or semantics for courseId beyond what the pattern hints at.
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?
States a clear resource (inscripción/rol/condiciones of the current account in a course) for a specific verb of retrieval. It distinguishes itself from gradebook/attendance/content siblings by scoping to enrollment data, though it never names a sibling directly.
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 negative clause ('No certifica matrícula académica ni consulta pagos o créditos') tells the agent when this tool is not appropriate, which is useful. However, it gives no positive usage context or names no alternative tool for the excluded cases, so routing is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.