POSTECH PLMS MCP

plms_get_assignment

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read assignment instructions, submission and grading status, deadlines, and attachment links from POSTECH PLMS. Never submits assignments.

Instructions

Read assignment instructions, submission/grading status, deadline and attachment links. Never submits.

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": {
      "assignment_id": "<assignment_id>"
    },
    "name": "plms_get_assignment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`assignment_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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. 'Never submits' adds a domain-specific confirmation that the tool cannot perform a write action despite the assignment context, but there is no mention of auth requirements, pagination or rate limits.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single compact sentence with the read scope front-loaded and the negative constraint last. No filler and nothing redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description's enumeration of returned fields is adequate. The only real gap is not pointing to how an assignment_id is obtained.

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 0% and the description never mentions the sole assignment_id parameter. Since assignment_id is a self-explanatory integer identifier, the schema's type is likely sufficient, but the description adds no guidance on where the ID comes from.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource (assignment) and enumerates the content returned: instructions, submission/grading status, deadline, attachment links. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling list tool plms_list_assignments and from other getters like plms_get_notice.

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 implied (fetch details for one assignment, given the required assignment_id) and the closing 'Never submits' functions as a when-not boundary. However, it never names an alternative such as plms_list_assignments for discovering IDs or states prerequisites, so guidance remains inferential.

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