list_assignmentsRetrieve assignments for a Quercus course, optionally filtered by status bucket such as upcoming, overdue, or ungraded, to track coursework and deadlines.
List assignments for a given Quercus course, optionally filtered by bucket.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bucket | No | ||
| course_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read, but it says nothing about pagination, result ordering, auth requirements, or what each bucket actually returns. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.
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 tight sentence with the required scope front-loaded and the optional filter trailing. No waste, though it is arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters.
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?
A simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations: the description covers the core action, but the enum semantics and any return-shape expectations are absent, which is the minimum viable level.
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%, so the description must compensate. It notes the bucket filter exists but does not explain the seven enum values (past, overdue, undated, ungraded, unsubmitted, upcoming, future) or how course_id is supplied, leaving the agent to guess at semantics.
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 (List), resource (assignments), and scope (for a given Quercus course) with an optional filter. Sibling tools cover different resources (courses, grades, announcements, todo), so the resource noun alone differentiates it, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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 on when to use this over list_todo or list_upcoming_events, which likely overlap for deadline-oriented tasks. The optional bucket is mentioned but no condition for when filtering is appropriate versus listing all.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.