Check whether and when you submitted a specific assignment folder, including score and feedback when available at the Restricted tier.
Whether and when the student submitted to one assignment folder. Score and feedback are included only at the Restricted tier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| course_id | Yes | ||
| folder_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds a genuine behavioral fact: score and feedback appear only at the Restricted tier, so output fields depend on access level. It does not say whose submission is returned (the authenticated student or an arbitrary one), which is significant given openWorldHint and the absence of a student parameter.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the tier caveat. Every sentence earns its place; only the vague reference to 'the student' costs it a point.
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?
An output schema exists so return shape need not be explained, and the tier note covers field availability. However, for a two-required-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage, the description should clarify the identity of the student and how to obtain the folder id, which it does not.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden for both parameters and does not explicitly tie course_id or folder_id to their meaning. 'One assignment folder' hints that folder_id is the assignment folder, but course_id is never addressed and neither format nor sourcing is explained.
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 names a specific verb-plus-resource: reporting whether and when a student submitted to one assignment folder. That is materially more specific than the tool name alone and separates it from list_assignments or get_my_grades. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is indirect.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as list_assignments or compliance_status. The only hint is the phrase 'one assignment folder', which implies a per-assignment query, but the agent must infer that.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.