Retrieve calendar events and approaching deadlines across active courses for a specified day range, helping students plan coursework and manage submission timing.
Calendar events and due dates across the student's active courses for the next days
days (max 60). Purdue Sensitive data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No |
| 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 establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two pieces of real value beyond them: a hard 60-day cap and the 'Purdue Sensitive data' classification, which signals handling constraints. It does not say whether results merge assignments and calendar events or how the window boundaries are computed.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the resource and scope, with no padding. The stray backtick and line break around `days` slightly hurt readability but cost nothing substantive.
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?
With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description does not need to explain return values, and it covers purpose, scope, cap, and sensitivity. The remaining gap is disambiguation from list_assignments and the undocumented default value, which an agent needs to call it correctly without inspecting the schema.
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 `days`, and it does partially: it defines the parameter as a look-ahead window and states a max of 60. It omits the default of 14, the unit assumptions (inclusive/exclusive, timezone), and behavior when the value exceeds 60.
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 resource (calendar events and due dates) scoped to the student's active courses and a bounded time window, which is more than a restatement of the name. It stops short of distinguishing itself from list_assignments, which an agent could reasonably see as overlapping.
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?
Usage is only implied: the phrase 'upcoming ... for the next days days' suggests a forward-looking aggregate view, and the 60-day cap hints at the intended horizon. No alternative sibling is named, and there is no statement about when to prefer this over list_assignments or assignment_submission_status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.