hisinone_list_semestersList the academic terms offered by the portal, each with its unique key, to identify available semesters for study data.
List the terms that the portal offers, with the key of each term.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat these. It adds the output detail 'with the key of each term', which is useful but not a behavioral trait beyond what annotations already convey. There is no contradiction, and the description does not introduce any extra behavioral expectations.
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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and object, with no redundant phrasing. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a no-parameter list tool, the description adequately states what it returns (the keys of terms). An output schema is present, which presumably defines the structure. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and expected result, though it could mention sorting or ordering, but that is minor given the simplicity.
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 has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter semantics to explain. With schema coverage at 100% (though empty), the baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing to add.
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 uses a specific verb 'List' and a clear resource 'terms', and adds 'the portal offers' to clarify scope. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like hisinone_list_documents or hisinone_get_profile, which target entirely different resources.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does without mentioning any use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent must infer from the name that this is for listing available terms, but no explicit direction is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.