Retrieve school contact info and staff directory with names, roles, and phone numbers for a given school ID.
List school contact info and staff directory with names, roles, and phone numbers.
Returns JSON with school details (phone, address) and staff records. Use get_staff_member(school_id, user_id) for full staff details including email, photo, and office hours.
Args: school_id: School ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| school_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns JSON with school details and staff records, and implies it provides only basic info (via contrast with get_staff_member). It does not mention side effects, auth requirements, or pagination, but for a read-only list operation this is acceptable. The description adds value but leaves room for more behavioral context.
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 concise, using three short sentences plus a simple Args listing. The main purpose is stated first, followed by return format and a pointer to an alternative. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the most important information, though the Args section could be integrated more fluidly.
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?
Given it is a simple list tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential return contents (school phone, address, staff records) and distinguishes itself from a more detailed sibling. However, it lacks details on potential limits, error handling, or whether the staff records include only names/roles/phones, which could be inferred but not explicit. It is adequate but not fully complete.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter school_id. The description only repeats 'School ID' in the Args section, adding no semantic meaning beyond the schema's type and title. This provides no guidance on format, constraints, or how to obtain the ID, which is a significant gap.
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 clearly states the tool lists school contact info and staff directory with specific fields (names, roles, phone numbers). It also explicitly differentiates from get_staff_member by pointing out that tool provides full details. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from siblings.
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 explicitly directs users to get_staff_member for full staff details, indicating when not to use this tool. It implies usage when basic contact info and directory are needed. However, it does not mention any prerequisites or conditions beyond that contrast, leaving some ambiguity but still providing clear context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.