Retrieve a structured study plan for any technology at beginner or advanced levels to guide your learning path.
Retorna o plano de estudos para uma tecnologia e nível.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| level | Yes | Nível: iniciante ou avancado | |
| technology | Yes | Nome da tecnologia (ex: javascript) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Retorna' implies a read-only operation and makes the core behavior clear, but it does not state side-effect freedom, response shape, or any constraints (e.g., technology format). For a simple retrieval tool this is adequate but minimal.
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 that efficiently conveys the resource and scope with no filler. It is immediately readable and contains all essential purpose information. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.
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?
The tool is simple, with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values in detail. However, the description omits context about what the study plan contains, how it relates to the sibling tools (desafio, certificado), and whether any ordering or prerequisites apply. It is acceptable for a basic query but not fully complete for an agent navigating the tool landscape.
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 100%: each parameter already has a meaningful description with an example (e.g., 'javascript' and 'iniciante ou avancado'). The tool description only restates 'tecnologia e nível' without adding value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 ('Retorna') and a clear resource ('plano de estudos') scoped by technology and level, so an agent can tell what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tools (desafio, certificado), but the names and resource type make the distinction fairly evident.
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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the alternatives (desafio, certificado). There are no when-to-use hints, exclusions, or context about whether this should be used before or after a challenge/certificate. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and sibling tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.