Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
NTUT iSchoolPlus MCP

NTUT iSchoolPlus MCP

by gab61201
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_school_calendar

Retrieve the NTUT school calendar as an iCal feed, with an optional date range; no login required. Use it to plan around academic events, deadlines, and holidays.

Instructions

取得北科大行事曆 (iCal feed)。不須登入。

不加參數時預設回傳今天起 12 個月內的事件。 可指定 from_date / to_date 自訂範圍，格式 YYYY-MM-DD。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_school_calendar"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
to_dateNo
from_dateNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key traits: it is an unauthenticated read and it has a defined default scope of 12 months. It omits timezone and rate-limit behavior, but the presence of an output schema removes the need to describe return values.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler: identity/format first, auth second, parameter behavior last. Every sentence adds information an agent needs.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers auth, default scope, and date format — enough to call it correctly. Only edge-case semantics for partial date ranges are missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% (only bare titles 'From Date'/'To Date'), so the description must compensate and largely does: it names both parameters, assigns them a date-range meaning, and specifies the YYYY-MM-DD format plus the default when omitted. It leaves open whether bounds are inclusive and what a single-sided range does.

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 (取得北科大行事曆, an iCal feed) plus the data format, which tells an agent exactly what it retrieves. No sibling tool in the list covers calendars, so it is unambiguously distinct from login/timetable/course tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives clear operational context: no login required, and the default behavior when called with no arguments (events for the next 12 months from today). It also explains when to supply from_date/to_date, though it does not state what happens if only one bound is given.

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