Fetch a student's assigned bus stops by numeric student ID, returning stop name, scheduled time, days of the week, and latitude/longitude for each stop.
Get a student's assigned bus stops — stop name, scheduled time, days of the week, and stop location (lat/lng) for each.
| 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 real value beyond that by disclosing the shape of the response (stop name, scheduled time, days of the week, lat/lng), which matters because no output schema exists. It still omits any mention of empty results or error behavior for an unknown studentId.
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 zero filler; the resource comes first and the return fields follow as a compact list. Every clause 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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies enough to call it correctly and to know roughly what comes back. Minor gaps remain around empty/error results and how the stops relate to the live-location sibling, but nothing essential is missing.
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, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage, including its origin (alphaportal_list_students). The description adds nothing about the parameter itself, so the baseline of 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?
The description names a specific verb and resource ('Get a student's assigned bus stops') and enumerates the returned fields (stop name, scheduled time, days, lat/lng), which is far more than a restatement of the tool name. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly-named sibling alphaportal_get_bus_location, so an agent must infer the split between 'assigned stops' and 'live bus position'.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives are named. The only routing hint available to the agent lives in the schema ('from alphaportal_list_students'), not in the description, which leaves the boundary with alphaportal_get_bus_location unstated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.