Retrieves logged-in user and Moodle site information for the UNAHUR virtual classroom, including the campus region such as “Campus 2026,” so agents know which academic-year site is in use.
Datos del usuario logueado y del sitio Moodle de su aula virtual. regional es el campus de la UNAHUR de esa aula (por ejemplo, "Campus 2026"): cada año lectivo tiene su propio campus.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare `readOnlyHint: true` and `openWorldHint: false`, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain context by explaining that `regional` refers to the UNAHUR campus for that classroom and that each academic year has its own campus, but it does not describe the full return shape or authentication behavior beyond the logged-in-user implication.
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?
The description is two tight sentences with no wasted text. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides targeted context for interpreting the `regional` value.
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?
Given the low complexity, zero parameters, and absence of an output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies the returned entities and explains the `regional` campus concept. A little more detail about the exact fields returned would improve completeness, but nothing critical for invocation is missing.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter syntax, and the mention of `regional` is helpful for interpreting returned data rather than compensating for missing parameter documentation.
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?
The description clearly states that the tool returns data for the logged-in user and the Moodle site of their virtual classroom, using the concrete example of `regional` as the UNAHUR campus. It does not explicitly compare itself with sibling tools, but the resource and scope are clear enough to distinguish it from action-oriented siblings like `aula_list_courses` or `aula_send_message`.
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?
The description explains what data is returned but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the fact that the tool returns current user and site information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.