Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
GatorPath

GatorPath

by ashleytzele
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

compare_programs

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare your current major with a target program to see completed, in-progress, and remaining units, course overlap, extra terms, and graduation timing before changing majors.

Instructions

What if the student changes major to target (a program id from list_programs)? Returns current and target: major units done / in progress / needed, and build_plan's terms and est_graduation_term at the profile's load; the target's major groups (what counts, what's left); courses: count_in_both, only_current (still count toward the 120 and GE), only_target; and extra_terms (target minus current). The new major is the Bulletin in effect when they change (quoted in warnings); GE and graduation requirements stay their catalog year's. Show the see_advisor items: the official check is the Student Center What-If report and the target department.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "profile": "<profile>",
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "compare_programs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYes
profileYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), yet the description adds genuine domain behavior: the new major uses the Bulletin in effect at the change term (reported in warnings), while GE and graduation requirements stay tied to the student's catalog year. It also discloses that results are advisory only and flags see_advisor items. Return-format and pagination behavior remain unspecified.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The what-if question is well front-loaded, but the remainder is a dense chain of backticked field names and internal jargon (build_plan's terms, major groups, see_advisor items) that is harder to parse than necessary. Little is wasted, but the sentence structure sacrifices readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description commendably enumerates the return shape, and the catalog-year rule and advisor caveat fill important gaps. But for a tool whose `profile` argument is a large nested object with zero schema descriptions, the definition says almost nothing about what the profile must contain, leaving a material gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning: it defines `target` as a program id from list_programs and ties `profile` to the student's load and catalog year. That is real added meaning for `target`, but the large nested Profile object is only referenced obliquely, leaving most of its structure undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description frames a specific analytical operation — simulating a major change to `target` and comparing `current` versus `target` — and enumerates the return fields (units done/in progress/needed, build_plan terms, major groups, course overlap, extra_terms). It names `list_programs` as the source of the id, giving an agent a clear handle. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like check_plan or build_plan, which keeps it below a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is an implied usage hint (target comes from list_programs) and a caveat that the official check is the Student Center What-If report and the target department. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this versus audit_progress, check_plan, or build_plan, so an agent must infer the scenario from the 'what if' framing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools