POSTECH PLMS MCP

plms_get_attendance

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch online learning progress and offline attendance for a course to verify participation; choose online, offline, or both with course_id.

Instructions

Read online learning progress and/or offline attendance ('online', 'offline', 'both'). Future/unprocessed is unknown.

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_get_attendance"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	No		both
`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

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful data-state caveat — that future/unprocessed records read as 'unknown' — which is not derivable from annotations, but it says nothing about auth needs, refresh/staleness, or result shape.

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?

Two very short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and then the data-state caveat; nothing is padded. Slight ambiguity from the 'and/or' phrasing keeps it from a 5.

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?

The tool is a simple two-parameter read, an output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers purpose, the kind values, and a behavioral caveat; only the course_id reference and any caller-side context are left implicit.

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 schema defines no enum for 'kind' despite offering a default of 'both'. The description rescues this by enumerating the accepted values ('online', 'offline', 'both'), which is real added meaning, but it leaves 'course_id' semantics entirely undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('online learning progress and/or offline attendance'), which is more informative than the bare tool name. It does not, however, contrast itself with adjacent siblings like plms_get_grades or plms_course_outline, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 statement of when to call this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The parenthetical enum values describe a parameter, not usage context, so guidance is effectively absent.

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