Retrieve active, pending, and favorite courses from Camino, including unstarred ones, to get a complete view of your current courses.
List all active, pending, and favorite courses (including unstarred courses).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It signals a read-only listing action and clarifies scope with 'including unstarred courses', but it does not mention authentication, pagination, or response shape. For a simple list tool this is acceptable, but there are still unstated behavioral details.
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?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds scope clarification. Every part of the sentence earns its place.
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 zero-parameter list command with no output schema, the description is largely self-sufficient. It identifies the resource and scope. However, it could be more complete by noting whether pagination or authentication details apply, though these are not likely to block correct invocation for such a simple tool.
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 has zero parameterschers, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters; it adds useful context about what the returned list contains, which is sufficient given the empty input schema.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('List'), names the exact resource ('courses'), and defines scope ('active, pending, and favorite') with the clarification that unstarred courses are included. This differentiates it clearly from sibling tools like list_assignments or grades.
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 the tool should be used when an agent needs the full set of courses, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives or mention sibling tools. The context is clear enough for a zero-parameter listing tool, but the guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.