moodle-um

moodle_list_assignments

List all assignments in a Moodle course with due dates and submission status to track deadlines and coursework.

Instructions

List the assignments ("devoirs") of a course, with due dates and status.

Args: courseid: Moodle course id.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "courseid": "<courseid>"
    },
    "name": "moodle_list_assignments"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`courseid`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the useful behavioral fact that results include due dates and a status field, but says nothing about whether all assignments or only enrolled/visible ones are returned, whether pagination applies, or what authentication is needed. Low-risk read operation, so partial disclosure is acceptable but incomplete.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short passages, with the purpose front-loaded before the Args block. Minimal waste; the parenthetical French gloss is a small but defensible aid for terminology matching in Moodle's localized UI.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter meaning, and returned fields, which is close to sufficient. It still leaves open the scope of results (all vs. enrolled-only, submitted vs. pending) that an agent would need to interpret 'status' correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for one parameter. It clarifies that courseid is a Moodle course id (as opposed to a shortname or display name), which is meaningful disambiguation, but adds no format or example detail beyond that.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("List the assignments"), scopes it to a course, and previews the returned fields (due dates and status). It implicitly contrasts with the singular sibling moodle_get_assignment but never names it, so the differentiation is left to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to alternatives such as moodle_get_assignment (single assignment detail) or moodle_upcoming (cross-course deadlines). The phrase "of a course" only hints that a course context is required.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.