list_courses
Retrieve your enrolled course list from UTOL. Optionally refresh to bypass cache.
Instructions
受講登録している講義(時間割)の一覧を取得する。
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| refresh | No | true でキャッシュを無視して再取得 |
Retrieve your enrolled course list from UTOL. Optionally refresh to bypass cache.
受講登録している講義(時間割)の一覧を取得する。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| refresh | No | true でキャッシュを無視して再取得 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are available, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as caching behavior (despite the 'refresh' parameter hinting at it), side effects, or authentication needs. The description adds little beyond the parameter schema.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. No unnecessary words or repetition. It is optimally sized for its content.
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?
For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details about the list's scope (e.g., all registered courses? current term?), caching behavior, and return format, which would be helpful for an agent.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage (one parameter 'refresh' with a description). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the tool returns a list of registered lectures (timetable), using a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_course' (single course) or 'search_courses' (search).
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/keyhr/utol-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server