List the courses tied to your authenticated Blackboard account, respecting your existing permissions, so you can view available courses.
Cursos asociados a la cuenta autenticada, respetando los permisos de Blackboard
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are constrained by Blackboard permissions, a useful behavioral note, but says nothing about pagination, result size, or whether an empty list is possible.
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 tight sentence with no filler, and the scope constraint is stated immediately. It reads as a label fragment rather than a complete sentence, which slightly weakens front-loading of the action.
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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, an agent would benefit from knowing the shape of each returned course (id, name, enrollment info) to chain into other calls. The description covers the filtering rule but omits the return shape and any pagination behavior.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter semantics are missing.
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 the resource (courses) and its scope (those tied to the authenticated account), which is enough to separate it from single-course siblings like blackboard_get_course. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, so the 'list' action is only implied by the name, but the intent is unambiguous.
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 guidance on when to choose this over the ~70 siblings. There is no mention of alternatives (e.g., blackboard_get_course for a single course) or of prerequisites such as needing to be logged in first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.