List files attached to a Blackboard attempt by course, column, and attempt ID. Use it to inspect associated files without assuming they are teacher corrections.
Lista archivos asociados a un intento; no los identifica automáticamente como correcciones del docente.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| columnId | Yes | ||
| courseId | Yes | ||
| attemptId | 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 and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral disclosure beyond the structured fields: returned files are not automatically classified as teacher corrections, which affects how an agent should interpret results. It does not describe pagination or return format, but the output-semantics caveat is meaningful.
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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and then qualified with the key caveat. Efficient with no padding, though the trailing clause is slightly compressed for an English-speaking agent audience.
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 list tool without an output schema, the description does cover the safety profile via annotations and adds the correction-classification caveat. However, with three required patterned parameters at 0% description coverage and no mention of result shape or limits, it leaves gaps an agent must resolve from the schema alone.
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 there are 3 required parameters (courseId, columnId, attemptId) documented only by regex patterns. The description mentions 'intento' which loosely maps to attemptId, but says nothing about the roles or formats of courseId/columnId, so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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 a specific verb+resource: 'Lista archivos asociados a un intento', naming the attempt-file relationship directly. It is distinguishable from siblings like blackboard_list_attachments and blackboard_get_attempt, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives. The added clause about not auto-identifying corrections clarifies scope rather than purpose.
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?
Usage is implied by the attempt-scoped framing, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus blackboard_list_attachments or blackboard_get_attempt. The negative clarification about 'correcciones del docente' is a semantic caveat, not an alternative-selection rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.