Refresh Gradescope course listings, attachments, submissions, and rubric feedback. Runs asynchronously; poll status; omit filters to include older courses.
Refresh Gradescope course listings, attachments, submissions, visible rubric and annotations. Runs asynchronously; poll sync_status. Omitting filters checks all courses, including older courses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| course_id | No | ||
| assignment_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write/network profile is known. The description adds genuinely new behavior: asynchronous execution with a documented polling follow-up, and the scope consequence of an empty filter set. It still omits whether stale local data is removed and any rate/timing expectations.
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 dense sentences, no filler, and the most important operational fact (asynchronous, poll sync_status) is placed early. Every clause carries information an agent needs.
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 non-idempotent, async refresh with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is refreshed, that it returns immediately, how to get results, and the default scope. The remaining gap is parameter-level behavior and any note on whether syncing removes data that disappeared upstream.
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%, so the schema names course_id and assignment_id but never explains their role, format, or interaction. The description partially compensates by framing them as optional filters whose omission means all courses (including older ones), but it never states what happens when only course_id is supplied or what the ^[a-zA-Z0-9-]+$ format requires.
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 (refresh/sync) and enumerates the exact resources pulled: course listings, attachments, submissions, rubric, annotations. It also implicitly separates itself from sync_status by naming it as the polling companion. It does not contrast with the related sibling get_changes, so sibling differentiation is incomplete.
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?
Gives clear operational context: the run is asynchronous, so call sync_status to poll, and omitting filters widens the scope to all courses including older ones. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or head-to-head routing against get_changes, keeping it below a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.