POSTECH PLMS MCP

plms_course_outline

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a course's weekly activities, materials, restricted or upcoming items, description, and navigation to review course structure and content.

Instructions

Read weekly activities, materials, restricted/upcoming items, description and course navigation.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "course_id": "<course_id>"
    },
    "name": "plms_course_outline"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`course_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope detail by naming categories of returned content (restricted and upcoming items), but says nothing about auth requirements, pagination, or scope 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficiently sized, though the enumerated list reads slightly like a dump of fields rather than a prioritized statement of purpose.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Because an output schema exists, return-value detail is not required. Still, for a tool sitting among many near-duplicate siblings, the definition omits the usage context and parameter meaning an agent needs to select and call it correctly.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The single required course_id parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or explains what a course_id is or where it comes from. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.

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 uses a clear verb ('Read') and enumerates the resource's contents (weekly activities, materials, restricted/upcoming items, navigation), so an agent can tell it returns a course outline. However, it does not differentiate itself from overlapping siblings such as plms_list_assignments, plms_weekly_brief, or plms_get_syllabus, which plausibly return similar material.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives among the many closely related PLMS tools. The agent must infer the intended context entirely from the name.

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