POSTECH PLMS MCP

plms_upcoming_deadlines

Read-onlyIdempotent

Aggregate assignment and video deadlines across courses, excluding submitted work by default. Filter by days or course, include overdue items, and keep unknown-date entries when data is partial.

Instructions

Aggregate assignment and video deadlines, excluding confirmed submitted work by default. Preserve unknown-date items and partial failures.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "plms_upcoming_deadlines"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`days`	No
`course_id`	No
`include_overdue`	No
`include_submitted`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the default exclusion of submitted work, and the resilience commitment to "preserve unknown-date items and partial failures" – a non-obvious graceful-degradation trait useful to an agent reasoning about incomplete results.

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?

Two sentences, no waste, front-loaded with the verb+resource before the behavioral caveats. Every clause earns its place.

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 format needn't be described, and failure handling is covered. But with four undocumented parameters at 0% schema coverage, the meaning of days, course_id, and include_overdue is missing – leaving an agent guessing at the primary filtering inputs.

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%, so the description carries full burden. It only addresses include_submitted (via "excluding confirmed submitted work by default"); days, course_id, and include_overdue have no semantics explained anywhere. Partial compensation, not adequate.

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 ("Aggregate") and resource ("assignment and video deadlines"), which clearly differentiates it from siblings like plms_list_assignments or plms_get_assignment. It stops short of naming an alternative, but the aggregation scope is unambiguous.

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?

The clause "excluding confirmed submitted work by default" implies the intended use case and hints at the include_submitted parameter's effect. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over plms_export_calendar, plms_list_assignments, or plms_weekly_brief, leaving alternative selection to inference.

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