clickedu-mcp

get_subjects_and_rosters

Retrieve your subjects and class groups with each class_id, so you can pull rosters and access tutor/course tool links.

Instructions

Your subjects and class groups, with the class_id for each so you can pull a roster with get_roster, plus your tutor/course tool links.

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_subjects_and_rosters"
  }
}

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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the return content (subjects, groups, class_id, tutor/course links), which implies a read-only lookup, but it never states that it is read-only or that it takes no arguments. Given an output schema exists, the return-content gap is minor, but the safety profile is only implied.

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 sentence that front-loads what is returned before adding the get_roster chaining note. The trailing 'plus your tutor/course tool links' is slightly vague but does not bloat the definition.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a zero-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the description covers what comes back and the natural next call. The only missing piece is an explicit read-only/safety statement, which is a small gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument, scope-implicit call ('Your subjects...'), with no parameter semantics left to explain.

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?

The description names the concrete resources returned (subjects, class groups, class_id, tutor/course tool links), which is specific enough for an agent to know what it gets back. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from get_roster by positioning itself as the lookup that supplies class_id. It lacks a leading verb but the resource inventory is unambiguous.

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?

It states the chaining condition explicitly: use this to obtain class_id, then call get_roster to pull a roster. That is genuine when-to-use guidance tied to a named sibling. It doesn't state exclusions or when not to call it, which keeps 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.