downloadFetches a PDF, slide deck, or other course file from a direct platform URL via the student session and saves it to a specified workspace path.
Download a file (PDF, slides…) from a direct platform URL with the student session into the workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| dest | Yes | File path relative to the workspace, e.g. "Course/risorse/notes.pdf" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), and the description usefully adds that requests carry the student session and land in the workspace. It does not disclose what happens if the destination path already exists (overwrite vs. fail), nor what occurs with a non-platform URL — meaningful gaps for a write tool.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with the key constraint (direct platform URL, student session, workspace) stated up front and no waste. Slightly dense with parenthetical examples but efficient.
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 2-parameter tool with annotations present this is roughly adequate, but with no output schema the description should say what comes back (e.g., the saved workspace path or confirmation) and how failures on bad URLs are surfaced. Those omissions keep it at minimum viable.
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 coverage is 50%: `dest` is documented in-schema with an example, while `url` has only a `format: uri` constraint. The description partially compensates by constraining the URL to 'a direct platform URL' rather than arbitrary web addresses, but adds nothing about the return or destination-path 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 (download) and resource (file: PDF, slides) plus the destination scope (workspace), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. The phrase 'direct platform URL' implicitly distinguishes it from the click-based sibling download_by_click, but the sibling is never named.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'direct platform URL' hints that this is the path when you already have a URL, versus download_by_click or open_page. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative is given, leaving the agent to infer the routing against 11 siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.