Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
blackboard-mcp

blackboard-mcp

by felipedias-ie
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Get a course meeting schedule

bb_course_schedule
Read-only

Retrieve a course's recurring class meetings with days, times, and rooms. Use it to get scheduling details for any course.

Instructions

Lists the recurring class meetings configured for a course (day, time, room). Empty for courses whose instructor never set one up.

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": {
      "courseId": "<courseId>"
    },
    "name": "bb_course_schedule"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
courseIdYesCourse id, e.g. "_12345_1".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns only recurring/configured meetings and explicitly states that an empty result is expected when no schedule was set up. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core behavior, includes the output fields, and adds the important empty-case condition in a compact way. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough. It states what is returned, the empty behavior, and the schema covers the courseId format. No critical calling information is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The single parameter courseId is fully documented in the input schema with an example format ('_12345_1'), giving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('recurring class meetings configured for a course') with concrete fields (day, time, room). It is clear and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly name any sibling tool to differentiate itself from, such as bb_calendar.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The empty-result note gives some context about when the tool may return nothing, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bb_calendar or bb_get_course. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools