Retrieve a student's dismissal plan for a specific date, including the active option, note, early-dismissal time, and cutoff lock status.
The dismissal plan for one student on one date — the option in force, any note, the early-dismissal time, and whether the date is locked because the cutoff has passed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | YYYY-MM-DD | |
| 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?
The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it returns the option in force, any note, the early-dismissal time, and whether the date is locked due to a passed cutoff. This goes beyond the schema and annotations by clarifying the scope and output aspects. It does not disclose error behavior, but for a read-only lookup this is a minor gap.
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 dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then uses an em-dash list to enumerate the returned components. Every phrase earns its place with no filler or repetition.
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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context to understand the returned fields. It names the key output elements, though it does not fully explain what 'locked because the cutoff has passed' means in practice or what values 'option in force' can take. Overall, it is sufficiently complete 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both student_id and date fully described in the input schema. The tool description does not add new parameter-level details beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 resource: a dismissal plan for one student on one date, and enumerates its contents (option, note, early-dismissal time, locked status). It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get,' but the scoping to a single student and date clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pup_list_plans and pup_set_plan.
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?
Usage is implied by the phrase 'for one student on one date,' which suggests it is the single-plan lookup rather than lists or defaults. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pup_get_default_plans or pup_list_plans, nor does it mention any exclusions or preconditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.