Retrieve the status of a local course, including generated artifacts, source files, and the end of the generation log by providing the course identifier.
État d'un cours local : artefacts produits, sources, et fin du journal de génération.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cours | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reads local course state and returns produced artifacts, sources, and the tail of a generation log, which implies a safe read. It does not state what happens if the course is missing, permission needs, or whether it triggers any work.
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?
A single compact sentence with the operation front-loaded and no filler. It is slightly dense but appropriately sized for a simple read tool.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be repeated, yet the description still enumerates them. For a one-parameter read tool it is adequate, but the absence of usage context and parameter format leaves gaps an agent must fill from siblings.
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 coverage is 0% and the single 'cours' parameter has no description in the schema. The description never clarifies whether 'cours' is a name, slug, or path, so the parameter's expected format must be inferred from siblings.
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 resource and scope: it exposes the state of a local course (artifacts, sources, generation log tail). The verb 'État' clearly signals a read/inspection operation, but the description never distinguishes it from siblings like 'liste_cours' or 'fiche', leaving the agent to infer the boundary.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no condition that selects this tool over 'liste_cours' or 'fiche'. The sentence only describes output content, not invocation context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.