Generates a course study brief from published dates and syllabus candidates within a date range, including sources and notices without assuming pending tasks or inventing study availability.
Resumen basado en fechas publicadas y candidatos a sílabo, con fuentes y avisos. No supone tareas pendientes ni inventa disponibilidad de estudio.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| since | Yes | ||
| until | 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. The description does add genuine behavioral value by disclosing limitations ('no supone tareas pendientes ni inventa disponibilidad de estudio') and that output carries sources and warnings, which tells the agent the result is bounded and cited rather than inferred.
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 the core content statement front-loaded and the caveat second; nothing is padded. Slight deduction because the disclaimer occupies half the text without clarifying the tool's operation.
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?
With three undocumented required parameters and no output schema, the description should carry more of the burden. It never explains what the brief actually contains, how the date range is applied, or what 'avisos' means in practice, leaving the agent under-informed for a tool that is not trivially self-explanatory.
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% for all three required parameters, so the schema documents nothing. The phrase 'basado en fechas publicadas' loosely hints at the since/until range but gives no format, timezone, or inclusivity semantics, and courseId (with its '_N_N' pattern) is entirely unexplained.
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 names a content type (a summary grounded in published dates and syllabus candidates, with sources and warnings), but the noun 'Resumen' is vague about the actual operation and does not distinguish this from close siblings like blackboard_export_study_brief, blackboard_get_course_agenda, or blackboard_get_course_outline. An agent can guess the domain but not the distinct output.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative blackboard_export_study_brief or the agenda tools. The only scoping statement is a negative disclaimer about what the tool won't do, not about when to pick it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.