ufsc-moodle-mcp

Listar estudantes/participantes da disciplina

get_students

Read-onlyIdempotent

List enrolled course participants, including students, teachers, and monitors, with their names, emails, roles, and groups; filter by role or search by name, username, or email.

Instructions

Lista os participantes inscritos em uma disciplina (alunos, professores, monitores) com nome, e-mail, papéis (roles) e grupos.

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_students"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`role`	No	Filtra pelo shortname do papel (ex: "student" para apenas alunos, "editingteacher" para professores).
`search`	No	Filtro opcional por nome, matrícula/username ou e-mail.
`courseId`	No	ID da disciplina no Moodle.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.1Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the returned fields (nome, e-mail, papéis, grupos), which is helpful given there is no output schema, but it omits what happens when courseId is omitted and says nothing about pagination or result size limits.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

One dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope and returned fields come first. It is efficient, though the parenthetical role list slightly crowds the core statement.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the enumeration of returned attributes is genuinely useful, and the schema fully documents the three optional parameters. The remaining gap is behavioral: since no parameter is required, the description should explain the default scope when courseId is absent.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each of role, search and courseId documented in the schema itself (including example role shortnames). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Lista os participantes inscritos em uma disciplina') and even enumerates the role types covered (alunos, professores, monitores), which distinguishes it from the narrower group-oriented siblings like get_group_members. It stops short of naming an alternative outright, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being told.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the tool for roster lookups on a course, but nothing states when to prefer it over get_group_members or get_course_groups, nor when the role/search filters should be applied. No explicit exclusions or preconditions are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.