obs_public_find_coursesRetrieve published course sections for multiple course codes at once—no login required.
Look up several courses at once by code and return their published sections. No login required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| codes | Yes | ||
| level | No | LS | |
| only_available | No |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does communicate that the operation is public and that only published sections are returned, which is useful. However, it does not mention rate limits, error behavior, pagination, or the effect of the only_available flag.
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 front-loaded sentence communicates the core action, batching nature, return scope, and public-access trait with no filler. Every clause adds value and the description is easy to scan.
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?
Although an output schema exists, the input semantics are under-specified: an agent cannot tell what 'level' means or how 'only_available' changes results. The lack of any parameter descriptions plus missing usage guidance leaves the definition incomplete for a three-parameter public API.
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 explain the parameters. It clarifies what 'codes' means but leaves 'level' and 'only_available' completely unexplained, despite both having meaningful defaults that are not self-evident.
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 states a specific action ('look up'), a specific resource ('courses by code'), and the expected result ('return their published sections'). The batch qualifier and public scope distinguish it from list-like siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.
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 only usage signal is 'No login required,' which implies this is for public lookups. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_course_sections, obs_public_list_plans, or list_courses, and no exclusion criteria are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.