POSTECH PLMS MCP

plms_read_page

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read linked PLMS resources such as pages, folders, boards, calendars, and quiz metadata to view course content; no video playback or quiz attempts.

Instructions

Read a linked PLMS resource/folder/page/quiz metadata/board/calendar. Strict read routes only; no video playback/quiz attempts.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "plms_read_page"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes
`limit`	No
`offset`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real behavioral boundary not present in the annotations: it refuses video playback and quiz-attempt routes, which tells the agent what this tool will reject.

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 tight sentences with the read scope front-loaded and the exclusion immediately after. Nothing is padded, though "strict read routes" is jargon that would benefit from one clarifying clause rather than being terse for its own sake.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. Still, for a URL-driven tool with limit/offset parameters, the description omits how to recognize truncation or continue a paged read, which is the main operational gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description says nothing about any of the three parameters. The presences of limit (default 16000) and offset (default 0) strongly imply paged/truncated reads, but neither the truncation behavior nor the expected url format is explained anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and enumerates the resource types it covers (resource/folder/page/quiz metadata/board/calendar), so an agent knows what it returns. It is distinguishable from siblings like plms_get_grades or plms_get_notice by being the generic URL-driven reader, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

"Strict read routes only; no video playback/quiz attempts" gives a partial exclusion, which is more than most siblings offer. However it never says when to prefer this generic reader over the specific plms_get_* tools, so routing is left to inference.

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