Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
quercus-mcp

quercus-mcp

by lance-lii
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

List to-do items

list_todo

Retrieve your Quercus to-do items, including ungraded submissions and upcoming quizzes, so you can track pending coursework.

Instructions

List the current user's Quercus to-do items (ungraded submissions, upcoming quizzes, etc.).

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": "list_todo"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden. It discloses useful behavioral context: the scope is the current user (no filtering parameters) and the content spans ungraded submissions and upcoming quizzes. However, it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether the list is exhaustive, which are typical concerns for an unfiltered list endpoint.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core scope front-loaded and the parenthetical examples earning their place by disambiguating what a 'to-do item' means. No filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: whose items, what kind, and the domain (Quercus). Return value structure is unspecified, but no output schema exists, so a modest gap remains around ordering and completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to clarify or compensate for. It correctly conveys that the listing is scoped to the current user without options.

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 ('List') and resource ('the current user's Quercus to-do items') with concrete examples (ungraded submissions, upcoming quizzes) that pin down what counts as a to-do. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_assignments or list_upcoming_events by content, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

Usage is implied by the examples of what appears in the list, giving the agent a sense of when this tool is relevant, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. With siblings such as list_upcoming_events and list_assignments potentially overlapping, an explicit boundary would help.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools