Retrieve all visible sections, descriptions, and activities for a specific course by ID, enabling assistants to inspect course structure and content without manual navigation.
Devuelve todas las secciones visibles, descripciones y actividades de un curso.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| course_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context with "visibles", indicating only sections visible to the caller are returned, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or response shape.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the scope ("todas", "visibles") stated first and no wasted words. It is perhaps slightly too terse to carry usage guidance, but structurally efficient.
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 listing tool backed by annotations, the description covers the essential scope. It stops short of the completeness an agent needs for large courses, omitting any note on result volume, ordering, or what happens when sections are hidden.
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?
There is a single parameter (course_id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It implies a course scope but never clarifies that course_id is a numeric identifier or where to obtain it; the mapping is only inferable from the tool's subject matter.
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 and resource: returns all visible sections, descriptions and activities of a course. An agent can distinguish it as a full-contents fetch, but the description never names or contrasts it with siblings like search_course_contents or read_content.
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 word "todas" implies this is the exhaustive-retrieval option versus a targeted search, so the choice is inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as search_course_contents when the agent only needs a subset.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.