Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
DTU Learn MCP

DTU Learn MCP

by frederikngh
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

List assignments

list_assignments
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a DTU course's assignments and hand-in folders with due dates and attachment counts, sorted by deadline, to track upcoming submissions.

Instructions

Lists a course's assignments (hand-in folders) with due dates and attachment counts, sorted by due date.

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": {
      "course": "<course>"
    },
    "name": "list_assignments"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
courseYesCourse: a DTU course number (e.g. "02450"), part of the course name, or the Brightspace org unit id from list_courses.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail about sorting and returned fields (dates, attachment counts), but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or what happens when a course string matches multiple org units.

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?

One well-formed sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and packs scope, sort order, and returned fields without waste.

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 single-parameter, read-only list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and sort order adequately. Minor gaps remain around result size and ambiguity handling for partial name matches.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema description already explains the three accepted course identifier forms. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists a course's assignments') and adds scope detail (hand-in folders, due dates, attachment counts, sorted by due date). This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like get_assignment (single item) and get_course_outline.

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 description implies when to use it (you want a course's assignments) but does not explicitly contrast it with get_assignment or get_upcoming, both of which could plausibly cover overlapping needs. Usage is inferable 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