clickedu-mcp

get_documents

Retrieve your most recent documents from the Clickedu documents registry to review files shared in your daily teaching workflow.

Instructions

Your most recent documents (Documents registry).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_documents"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly fails it. 'Your most recent documents' hints that the result set is recency-limited and user-scoped, which is genuinely useful, but nothing is said about result limits, ordering, permissions, or whether the listing is read-only.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the key qualifier ('most recent') is front-loaded. The parenthetical '(Documents registry)' adds little and reads as internal jargon, but the cost is minimal.

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?

The tool is simple (zero params, output schema present, so return shape need not be explained), and the description covers the core idea adequately. The remaining gap is the unresolved overlap with get_files, which for a listing tool with a near-identical sibling is meaningful missing context.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema already conveys. The baseline of 4 applies; the description neither adds nor detracts from parameter understanding.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description names a resource ('documents') and implies a retrieval verb, with a parenthetical identifying it as the 'Documents registry', so the basic purpose is discernible. However, it never states the actual verb ('retrieve/list') and gives no basis for choosing it over the sibling get_files, which appears to cover a very similar domain.

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 mention of the obvious alternative get_files. The word 'most recent' implies recency scoping but never says how recent, whether results are paginated, or when an agent should prefer this over the file-oriented sibling.

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