Retrieve courses you are enrolled in, including as a teacher, with details like id, name, dates, and visibility. Use the course id to list assignments.
My courses on the Moodle site (where I am enrolled, including as a teacher): id, short and full name, dates, visibility. The course id is needed for moodle_list_assignments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful scope context (self-enrolled, including teacher role), but says nothing about pagination, result size limits, or auth requirements.
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 dense sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the field list follows. Every clause carries information.
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?
With no output schema, the description valuably enumerates the returned fields (id, short/full name, dates, visibility). The main remaining gap is pagination or result-count behavior, but for a zero-parameter read tool this is otherwise complete.
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, so the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level meaning is needed, and the description correctly avoids inventing options.
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 precise verb+resource ('List my courses on the Moodle site') and even clarifies enrollment scope ('including as a teacher'), which distinguishes it from an admin-style course listing. It also names the downstream relationship to moodle_list_assignments.
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?
The description implies usage by noting the course id is needed for moodle_list_assignments, but it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings like moodle_site_info or any exclusions. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.