Retrieve all discovered courses across terms, including discovery counts, access restrictions, and verification time, to review available course records.
List all discovered courses across terms. Includes discovery counts, access restrictions and verification time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some return-content context ('discovery counts, access restrictions and verification time'), but says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering, or freshness/verification of results — relevant gaps for an open-world listing tool.
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 compact sentences with the resource scoping front-loaded and no filler. Structure is clean, though the second sentence reads as a partial return-fields listing rather than the most decision-relevant information.
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 list tool with no output schema, the description hints at returned fields but omits pagination behavior and result ordering, which matter given the limit/offset params. Adequate but with clear gaps for correct invocation.
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 0% and the description never mentions the limit/offset parameters or their defaults, ranges, or pagination semantics. With two undocumented pagination parameters, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List all discovered courses across terms'), which is clear and distinguishable from siblings like list_assignments or search_coursework. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling listing tools, leaving the agent to infer scope from the name alone.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., connection state, sync requirements), and no mention of alternatives such as search_coursework or list_assignments. The agent gets no routing help despite several plausible sibling alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.