List the groups available in a Blackboard course, filter by name or group set membership, and identify which groups exist without checking your own enrollment.
Grupos que Blackboard permite consultar en el curso, con filtro de nombre y si pertenecen a un conjunto. No determina tu pertenencia, lista integrantes ni inscribe estudiantes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| courseId | Yes | ||
| inGroupSet | No |
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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds scope negatives (no membership resolution, no member listing, no enrollment), but says nothing about pagination, result volume, or permission requirements for a course-scoped listing.
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 tight sentences with the core capability front-loaded and the scope limits second. No filler, though the negation sentence is dense and could be sharper.
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 simple read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, this is close to adequate, but with 0% schema description coverage the description should say more about the required courseId and what a returned 'group' contains (id, name, group set).
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 carry parameter meaning. It does explain two of three parameters implicitly — the name filter and the group-set membership filter ('inGroupSet') — but adds no detail for the required courseId beyond the schema's own pattern, and no filter-matching behavior (exact vs partial name).
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 specific verb+resource in Spanish: listing the groups queryable in a course, plus its name and group-set filters. It is distinguishable from blackboard_get_group (singular fetch) and blackboard_list_group_sets, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.
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?
It draws clear boundaries by stating what it does NOT do — it does not determine your membership, list members, or enroll students — which steers the agent away from misusing this list operation for membership/member queries. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tools (get_group, list_group_sets) that would cover those cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.