Retrieve a student's weekly default dismissal plan and identify whether parent review is still needed.
A student's weekly default dismissal plan — how they normally leave school on each day of the week — and whether the defaults still need a parent review.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| student_id | Yes | Student id, from pup_list_students |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a read-only operation. The description adds useful semantic context (weekly defaults and parent-review status) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or no-data behavior. This is acceptable for a simple read-only tool.
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, compact sentence that front-loads the resource and then clarifies it with an em-dash aside. Every phrase adds meaning—weekly, default, per-day dismissal, and parent-review status—with no filler or redundancy.
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?
Given a one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return content: the default dismissal plan by weekday and the parent-review status. It could be more explicit about the exact output shape or behavior when no defaults exist, but it is otherwise adequate for selecting and invoking the 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 only parameter, student_id, is already fully documented in the schema with 'Student id, from pup_list_students', giving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no parameter-level details, so it remains at the baseline.
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 clearly identifies the returned resource: a student's weekly default dismissal plan, per weekday, plus whether parent review is still needed. It conveys the 'default' nature that separates it from generic plan tools, but it does not explicitly state the verb 'get' or name sibling tools for differentiation.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives are mentioned. The context is implied—use this when you need default dismissal plans or review status—but an agent is not told how to choose between this and related tools like pup_get_plan or pup_list_plans.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.