Retrieve a course's official syllabus, grading rules, instructor contacts, office hours, and uploaded syllabus files with supporting evidence using a course ID.
Read official syllabus, grading rules, contacts, office hours and candidate uploaded syllabus files with evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| course_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the 'with evidence' provenance hint, which suggests citations but is not explained; no auth, rate-limit, or scope details are given. With annotations carrying the load, this is adequate but thin.
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 compact sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. The enumerated content list is slightly listy but each item earns its place by telling the agent what the call returns.
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?
An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values, and the enumerated content plus the read-only annotations cover the essentials of a one-parameter read tool. The missing course_id semantics and any when-to-use routing are the residual gaps.
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 the required course_id parameter, its expected format, or where to obtain it. For a single required param the meaning is guessable, but the description compensates for none of the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('syllabus') and enumerates the content returned — grading rules, contacts, office hours, uploaded syllabus files. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling plms_compare_syllabus, leaving the agent to infer the boundary between reading and comparing.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative for related needs like comparing syllabi. The only signal is the implied 'read the syllabus' context; the agent gets no help deciding between this and plms_compare_syllabus or plms_course_outline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.