clickedu-mcp

get_student_daily

Retrieves a single student's day-by-day attendance, homework, work and behaviour log with counts, filtered by class and optional date range.

Instructions

Day-by-day log of ONE student ('Dia a dia' in the student file): every recorded absence, justified absence, late, justified late, homework done/not done, work and behaviour item and teacher observation, each with date, time, subject and result, plus a count summary.

alu_id comes from get_roster, class_id from get_subjects_and_rosters. date_from / date_to are YYYY-MM-DD; default is the whole current school year. Read-only.

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": {
      "alu_id": "<alu_id>",
      "class_id": "<class_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_student_daily"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`alu_id`	Yes
`date_to`	No
`class_id`	Yes
`date_from`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key trait: "Read-only." It also states the default date window (whole current school year) and that a count summary accompanies the per-record rows, which the agent would otherwise have to discover by calling. Return-shape detail overlaps somewhat with the existing output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the scope-defining sentence, then argument sourcing, then date semantics, then the read-only flag. The long enumeration of record types is dense but each item is informative; minor trimming of the list would not lose meaning but nothing here is filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 4-parameter, read-only log query with an output schema already present, the description covers scope, parameter provenance, date defaults and format, and safety. There is nothing an agent would need to guess before a correct first call.

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

Parameters5/5

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 entirely, and it does: both date parameters are given the YYYY-MM-DD format and their empty-string default is explained as "the whole current school year", and both id parameters are tied to the sibling tool that produces them.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ("Day-by-day log") and pins the scope hard: "ONE student", with the capitalized emphasis doing real disambiguation work against siblings like get_class_behaviour or get_monthly_attendance. It then enumerates the exact record types returned, so an agent knows what data lives behind the name.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives actionable provenance for the two required arguments ("alu_id comes from get_roster, class_id from get_subjects_and_rosters"), which is exactly the prerequisite chaining an agent needs. It does not name an alternative tool or state when to prefer get_monthly_attendance or get_attendance instead, so it stops short of explicit when-not guidance.

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