Retrieve recent announcements for a specified course, with bodies limited to AI-permitted courses, to check course updates while respecting Purdue sensitive-data policy.
Recent announcements in one course. Bodies are included only for courses with AI permission. Purdue Sensitive data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| course_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 declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere: it discloses a non-obvious conditional that announcement bodies are withheld unless the course has AI permission, and flags the data as Purdue Sensitive. That is genuinely useful context an agent would not otherwise have. It does not explain truncation behavior or the meaning of 'recent', which keeps it out of the top band.
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?
Three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, so there is little waste. However, 'Purdue Sensitive data.' is a dangling fragment with no predicate and no instruction about what the agent should do with that classification, which weakens an otherwise tight structure.
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?
Return values are covered by the output schema and the safety profile by annotations, so the definition is not dangerously incomplete. Still missing are the recency window, the effect and bounds of limit, and any statement about what the agent should do when bodies are omitted due to missing AI permission.
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 full burden and largely fails: 'one course' indirectly signals the required course_id, but the limit parameter (default 10) is never mentioned, and no maximum, pagination, or ordering semantics are given. 'Recent' is the only hint about result ordering or cutoff.
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 sentence names the specific resource and scope: announcements, restricted to one course, with a recency qualifier. No sibling tool overlaps (none of list_courses, get_course_outline, list_assignments cover announcements), so an agent can place it easily. It stops short of a clean verb+resource phrasing but the intent is unambiguous.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives for announcement retrieval. 'Recent' implies a recency filter but no window is defined, leaving the agent to guess whether older announcements are reachable at all.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.