GatorPath

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_eligible_electives

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find courses that can fill a specific degree requirement slot, with Bulletin descriptions, prerequisite readiness, and rankings by fit and overlapping requirements.

Instructions

Courses that can fill one requirement group's slot (e.g. 'senior_electives', 'ge_4ud', 'sfss_esca'), with the Bulletin description, so you can pick by the student's goal.

Each option has readiness at by_term (default: the plan's first term, or the next term): 'ready' (prereqs met),
'check' (met except what GatorPath can't verify: GPA, permission, unparsed text: see cannot_check), or 'blocked'
(blocked_by, plus ready_by: the first plan term it opens up, when a plan is given). Pass the build_plan output as
`plan` and the slot's term as by_term, so planned courses count. Options are ranked ready-first, then by
also_covers: other open requirements the same course would satisfy (GE, SF State Studies and American Institutions
may overlap with each other and the major, p.2352; one course can do triple duty, e.g. 4UD + Environmental
Sustainability + Global Perspectives). Re-run check_plan after filling slots. A group with
`approval` (courses an advisor consents to, no Bulletin list) returns that text, no options, and see_advisor.

full: true for the rest of the list, when the student asks for it: every option they can take (ready or check), no
limit, without descriptions. When by_term's Class Search schedule is out (schedule_out), each has on_schedule: true
(a section that term; these come first), false, or "unknown" (its subject wasn't scraped). crosslisted: the same
class under other codes (one option, not two). Without full, `more` names (code: title) the ones past `limit`
that full would add, so a course that fits the goal isn't missed for ranking low.

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>",
      "group_id": "<group_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_eligible_electives"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`full`	No
`plan`	No
`limit`	No
`by_term`	No
`profile`	Yes
`group_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say read-only/idempotent/closed-world; the description goes far beyond them, spelling out the readiness taxonomy ('ready'/'check'/'blocked' with cannot_check and ready_by), ranking order (ready-first, then also_covers), schedule_out behavior with on_schedule true/false/"unknown", crosslisting collapsing, the `more` field past `limit`, and the special approval-group case that returns advisor text instead of options. That is exactly the behavioral payload the annotations cannot carry.

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 lead sentence is well front-loaded, but the body is a dense run-on block with heavily nested parentheticals ('check' (met except what GatorPath can't verify: GPA, permission, unparsed text: see cannot_check)) that force re-reading. Much of the content earns its place, but the structure works against quick scanning.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a six-parameter tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description covers the return shape well (readiness, also_covers, on_schedule, crosslisted, more, approval fallback). The uncovered `profile` parameter and the absence of any statement about result ordering ties beyond ranking keep it from being fully complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and largely does: it defines full, plan, by_term, limit (via the `more` explanation) and implies group_id as the requirement group. The `profile` object, which is one of the two required parameters, is never described and must be inferred from build_plan/load_profile usage.

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?

Opens with a specific verb-like statement of what is returned: courses that fill one requirement group's slot (named examples 'senior_electives', 'ge_4ud', 'sfss_esca'), plus the Bulletin description. That is a concrete resource and scope an agent can act on. It never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings such as search_courses or ge_combinations, so it falls short of 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 Guidelines4/5

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

Gives real workflow guidance: pass the build_plan output as `plan` and the slot's term as by_term so planned courses count, re-run check_plan after filling slots, and use full:true only when the student asks for the rest of the list. What is missing is when to prefer this over search_courses or ge_combinations for open-ended exploration.

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

Deploy Server