Retrieve school-specific dismissal settings, including weekday notify times, plan cutoff times, and parent planning permissions, to configure plan rules.
A school profile together with its per-weekday notify times and plan cutoff times, and the settings that decide whether parents may set plans at all.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| school_id | Yes | School 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 covers the safety profile, and the description adds useful return-content detail. It does not disclose behavior such as error handling for unknown school_ids, data sourcing beyond 'profile', or response shape; with annotations present, 3 is appropriate.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core object and then appends the specific component groups. No filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.
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 read-only get-by-ID tool, the description names the essential return components and the schema covers the one parameter. It is complete for basic invocation, though it does not describe error/not-found behavior or response formatting, which would be useful without an output schema.
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 input schema fully describes school_id as an integer sourced from pup_list_students, and the tool description adds no parameter-level meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline 3 applies; there is no gap requiring the description to compensate.
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 identifies the resource (school profile) and specifies its distinctive content: per-weekday notify times, plan cutoff times, and parent-plan settings. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling getters like pup_get_student and pup_get_plan, though it states the result as a noun phrase rather than an explicit retrieval verb.
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 use case is implied: call this when you need a school's profile and plan-related settings. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer selection from the name and content.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.