LMS MCP 문제 신고

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

The description discloses important side effects: it sends data immediately if a remote collection address is configured, stores locally for retry on failure, and explicitly excludes sensitive LMS login info, student IDs, course names, and notice/assignment content. It also requires explicit user approval before sending.

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 concise and well-structured: it states the purpose, then the consent requirement, then privacy exclusions, then transmission/retry behavior. Every sentence adds meaningful information without unnecessary fluff.

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?

The description covers purpose, consent, privacy, and retry behavior, which is adequate for this tool. Minor ambiguity remains about what happens when no remote collection address is configured, but this is not critical given the schema and overall clarity.

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 schema already has 100% parameter description coverage with detailed field descriptions. The tool description adds general behavioral context about consent and privacy but does not materially clarify individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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's purpose: '이 MCP의 오류나 잘못된 결과를 접수합니다' (accepts reports of errors or incorrect results from this MCP). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like suggestion or feedback tools.

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?

It gives clear usage context: use for errors or incorrect results, and mandates showing a summary, details, diagnostic ID, and technical info and obtaining explicit consent before calling. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough.

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