Retrieve a student's full transportation details by student ID, including assigned school and morning and afternoon bus stops with times and calendars.
Get a student's full transportation detail: assigned school plus morning and afternoon stops with times and calendars.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| studentId | Yes | The numeric studentId (from alphaportal_list_students). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope of returned data (school, stops, times, calendars), which is useful, but discloses nothing about permissions, failures for unknown studentIds, or whether the call reaches a live district system despite openWorldHint.
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 no filler, and the returned content is listed immediately after the verb. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?
For a simple one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, this is nearly complete. Because no output schema exists, the description carries the return-shape burden and does outline the main fields, though it stays at a summary level.
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?
Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%; the schema already documents studentId and even points to alphaportal_list_students as its source. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Get a student's full transportation detail') and enumerates what is returned — assigned school, morning/afternoon stops, times, calendars. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling alphaportal_get_student_stops, whose name suggests the same stop data, so an agent cannot cleanly tell the two apart from the description alone.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The overlap with alphaportal_get_student_stops is left unresolved, leaving the agent to guess which tool to call for stop information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.