get_student_noticesRetrieve recent announcements, updates, and notices from the student noticeboard, with an optional limit to control how many are returned.
Fetch announcements, updates, and notices from the student noticeboard (nástěnka).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of recent notices to retrieve (default 10). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. 'Fetch' reasonably implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is useful, but it says nothing about authentication or session requirements (notable given siblings like check_auth_status and set_session_cookies) or about ordering of the 'recent' notices.
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 no filler, and the parenthetical Czech term aids disambiguation. It is close to minimal, though it could have spent a few more words on scope or ordering without becoming bloated.
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?
The tool is simple (one optional parameter) and has an output schema, so return values need no explanation. However, with zero annotations the definition leaves auth/session expectations and recency ordering unaddressed, which is a meaningful gap for an agent operating among session-dependent siblings.
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 coverage is 100% and the single 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema with its default. The description adds no additional meaning such as a maximum cap or how notices are ordered before truncation, 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 ('Fetch') and a concrete resource (announcements, updates, notices from the student noticeboard / nástěnka), so an agent immediately knows what data comes back. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_student_emails or get_interactive_syllabus, which also surface course-related communications, so the differentiation is left implicit.
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 named alternative despite a large sibling set that overlaps in content (emails, syllabus, course details). The only implicit cue is the word 'noticeboard', which an agent must itself map to a selection decision.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.