Lists unfinished Moodle assignments and activities due within a specified number of days, excluding submitted work and past-due items so users can plan upcoming tasks.
Menampilkan aktivitas yang belum selesai dan jatuh tempo dalam sekian hari ke depan.
Tugas yang sudah dikumpulkan biasanya tidak ikut tampil. Tenggat yang sudah lewat tidak ditampilkan.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety needs no restating. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the result-filtering rules: completed/submitted activities are normally excluded and expired deadlines are hidden. The hedge 'biasanya' (usually) is honest about non-determinism but slightly weakens predictability.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the two exclusion rules. No filler or marketing language. The odd mid-sentence line wrapping is formatting noise rather than verbal waste.
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 one-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and filtering rules adequately. It leaves open what an 'activity' actually is (assignment, quiz, exam), whether results are sorted by due date, and how the default window is applied — modest but real gaps.
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 coverage is 0% for the single 'days' parameter, so the description must carry the load. It does explain the parameter's meaning ('jatuh tempo dalam sekian hari ke depan'), i.e. a forward-looking window, but gives no units guidance, no mention of the default of 14, and no boundary behavior.
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 specific verb+resource in behavioral terms: activities that are not yet completed and fall due within the next N days. An agent can tell at a glance this is a filtered deadline list rather than a profile, course, or file tool like any of the siblings. It stops short of naming scope relative to siblings, but no sibling overlaps so confusion risk is low.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the exclusions ('submitted tasks usually don't appear', 'past deadlines are not shown') tell the agent what results will look like, which indirectly signals when this tool is useful. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no alternative named, so the guidance remains inferential.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.