Retrieve published submission receipts for your attempts in a Blackboard activity using course and column IDs. An absent receipt does not prove non-submission.
Comprobantes publicados de tus intentos en una actividad. Un comprobante ausente no demuestra falta de entrega; no crea comprobantes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| columnId | 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 cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is clear. The description adds that it does not create receipts, but doesn't explain what a receipt contains, whether it requires specific permissions, or any rate limits. Marginal value beyond 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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by an important caveat. No unnecessary words, though the caveat 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?
No output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and no annotations beyond safety. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand what a receipt looks like, how to interpret empty results, or what the parameters mean in practice.
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%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'una actividad' (an activity) and implies course context, but doesn't explain the two required parameters (courseId, columnId) or their patterns. Significant 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?
States it returns published receipts ('Comprobantes publicados') for attempts in an activity, but the phrase is generic and doesn't clearly distinguish it from siblings like blackboard_list_attempts or blackboard_get_attempt. An agent can infer it's about submission receipts, but the verb+resource pairing is vague.
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?
Includes a caveat about absent receipts not proving non-submission, which implicitly tells the agent when NOT to conclude something. However, there's no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives like blackboard_export_submission_receipts or blackboard_get_attempt.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.