obs_get_attendanceRetrieve attendance records for a specific class by providing its OBS class ID. Get the attendance data you need for any registered course directly from Ninova.
Return the attendance record for one registered class, identified by its OBS class id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| class_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states that the tool returns attendance for a registered class; it does not mention authentication/session requirements, error behavior, or what 'attendance record' includes. The 'registered class' qualifier adds a small constraint, but key behavioral context is missing.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then specifies the identifier. Every word earns its place.
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 a single parameter and an output schema present, the tool is structurally simple and return values are already covered. However, the description omits usage guidance versus sibling tools and does not mention whether an authenticated OBS session is required, which is a notable gap for an OBS data-fetching tool.
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 must compensate. It explicitly identifies the lone parameter's semantics as the 'OBS class id,' which is meaningful and differentiates it from a generic course identifier. It stops short of explaining how to obtain the id, but for a single simple parameter this is adequate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('the attendance record for one registered class'), scoped by 'its OBS class id.' This clearly identifies both the action and the distinguishing identifier, separating it from siblings like get_course_attendance that are not OBS-specific.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool: when you need attendance for a single registered class and have the OBS class id. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some routing inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.