Fetch Schoology assignments with their attachments and matched StudentVUE scores to track coursework and grades for a specific course section.
List Schoology assignments with attachments and matched StudentVUE scores.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sectionId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that results are enriched with attachments and cross-matched StudentVUE scores (a real behavioral trait), but says nothing about permissions, pagination, or failure modes when no StudentVUE match exists.
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 with no wasted words. It is terse rather than structured, but nothing is padded.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of behavioral detail; it covers purpose and return content but omits parameter semantics and the mechanics of the Schoology/StudentVUE match. Inadequate for an integration tool with an undocumented identifier parameter.
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% and the description never mentions sectionId. It does not explain what a section ID is, where to get one, or what happens when the parameter is omitted (it is not required), leaving a real ambiguity about whether the call is global or scoped.
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?
Specific verb (List) plus resource (Schoology assignments) and it hints at enrichment (attachments, matched StudentVUE scores). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling studentvue_get_assignments, which an agent must choose between.
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?
No statement of when to use this tool versus the very similar sibling studentvue_get_assignments, no prerequisites, and no exclusion conditions. The agent must infer scope from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.