Retrieve a program’s 2026–27 curriculum to see which courses are offered in each grade and semester, with AKTS credits, filtered by grade, semester, or program name.
Bir programın 2026-27 müfredatı: hangi sınıfta hangi dersler, kaç AKTS.
Args: sinif: 1-4; boşsa hepsi. yariyil: "Güz" ya da "Bahar"; boşsa ikisi de. program: Program adı parçası; boşsa Bilgisayar Mühendisliği (İngilizce).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sinif | No | ||
| program | No | ||
| yariyil | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuinely useful non-obvious behavior: an unset program silently falls back to Bilgisayar Mühendisliği (İngilizce), and unset filters broaden rather than error. It does not clarify whether the tool is read-only, ordering, or what happens when a program name matches nothing.
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?
One front-loaded sentence states the purpose and return content, followed by a compact Args block with one line per parameter. Every sentence earns its place and no restatement of the schema's type information is included.
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?
For a three-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the parameter semantics and the shape of the return (year, courses, ECTS) reasonably well. It only leaves open edge behavior — no match on program, ordering, or result size — which is minor for a curriculum lookup.
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% and the schema itself carries only titles and null defaults, so the Args block does all the work. It adds real meaning beyond the schema: sinif is bounded to 1-4 and means 'year', yariyil is constrained to Güz/Bahar and means semester, and program is a substring match with a documented default — none of which appears in the schema.
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 first line names a specific resource and scope: a program's 2026-27 curriculum, returning which courses fall in which year and their ECTS. That is far more than a restatement of the name 'mufredat', and the output shape is stated. It stops short of a 5 because it never distinguishes itself from plausible siblings such as ders_bilgisi or ders_programi.
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 through the parameter defaults ('boşsa hepsi', 'boşsa Bilgisayar Mühendisliği (İngilizce)'), which tell the agent what happens when it passes nothing. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over ders_programi or ders_bilgisi, and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.