Coursera MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the authentication requirement ('Requires authentication'), which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention other important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error conditions, or what the output format looks like (though there's no output 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 extremely concise (two short sentences) with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second sentence provides essential behavioral context. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and authentication context but lacks information about return values, error handling, and other behavioral aspects. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured metadata, the description is adequate but has clear gaps in completeness.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

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 specific action ('List all enrolled Coursera courses') and specifies what information is included ('with progress and status'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_courses' (which searches) and 'get_course_details' (which gets details for a specific course).

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?

The description provides clear context ('enrolled Coursera courses') and mentions authentication requirements, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like 'search_courses' for unenrolled courses or 'get_certificates' for certificate-specific data. It gives good usage context but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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