Retrieve course assignments and evaluable activities from Aula Virtual, including due dates, attempt types, and published scores. Use it to review what is graded without checking submission status.
Actividades evaluables Attempts/Manual con fechas y puntajes publicados; no determina si falta entregar
| 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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are limited to Attempts/Manual grading types, only published dates and scores are returned, and it explicitly does not resolve missing submissions. It stops short of describing return shape or pagination.
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?
It is a single compact sentence with no filler, which is good, but the telegraphic style and the language mismatch with the rest of the toolset (English names/siblings) make it hard to parse quickly. Conciseness is achieved at the cost of readability.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotation-level detail about results, so the description should carry more weight than it does. It does disclose the grading-type filter and the missing-submission limitation, but omits any description of returned fields, ordering, or the courseId parameter, leaving gaps for an agent that must call it blind.
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 required courseId (with pattern ^_\d+_\d+$) is never mentioned in the description. With one undocumented parameter, the description provides no format or meaning cues to compensate for the schema 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 fragment 'Actividades evaluables' names the resource (gradable assignments) and narrows scope to Attempts/Manual grading types, but it never supplies a verb (list/retrieve) and is written as a compressed noun phrase rather than a statement of what the tool does. An agent must infer the 'list' behavior from the tool name alone.
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 determina si falta entregar' is a genuine negative constraint that tells the agent not to rely on this tool for missing-submission detection, which is useful routing information. However, it names no alternative tool and gives no positive 'use this when...' condition, so the guidance is only half-complete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.