Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Ninova MCP

Ninova MCP

by hikmedit
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Get Tracked Updates

get_updates

Retrieve recent changes from your Ninova courses including announcements, files, assignments, and grades by reading stored tracking history.

Instructions

Read the stored Ninova tracking history and return recent detected changes.

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_updates"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
courseNo
entity_typeNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.5

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description indicates a read operation but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as auth requirements, rate limits, pagination, or what 'recent' means. With no annotations, the description should provide more detail.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence without fluff, but it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points) and is too brief to be fully informative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the 3 optional parameters and existence of an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain filtering behavior or return format, making it incomplete for a tool that likely queries a history log.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the parameters are entirely undocumented. The description does not explain 'limit', 'course', or 'entity_type' or how they affect results, leaving the agent without critical usage details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool reads 'stored Ninova tracking history' and returns 'recent detected changes', which identifies it as a read-only retrieval tool. It uses specific verbs and resource naming, differentiating it from sibling tools like crawl_course (which likely fetches fresh data).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the many sibling tools (e.g., get_dashboard, get_course_info), the description offers no context for selection.

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