Fetch structured details for one Moodle course by ID, including name, summary, category, dates, visibility, and completion settings. Use it to inspect course configuration via MCP.
Fetch structured details for a single Moodle course by ID. Returns full name, short name, summary, category, format, start/end dates, visibility, and completion tracking settings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| courseid | Yes | Moodle course ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; 'Fetch' and 'Returns' strongly imply a read-only operation, and the enumerated return fields give useful output context. However, it does not disclose error behavior for a missing course, permission requirements, or that the result is a single object.
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?
Two tight sentences with the action and scope front-loaded and the returned fields listed compactly. Minor filler in 'structured details' but no wasted sentences.
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 lookup with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields. Only the missing error/not-found behavior keeps it short of complete.
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% for the single courseid parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. 'By ID' restates the parameter's role without adding format, range, or sourcing guidance beyond the schema.
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?
Specific verb ('Fetch') plus resource ('structured details for a single Moodle course') plus the selecting key ('by ID'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_courses and search_courses_by_name, which return collections.
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 singular scope and ID-based lookup, but the description never states when to prefer this over search_courses_by_name or list_courses, nor what happens if the ID is unknown. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.