Retrieve the full list of classes for your school. Specify the school subdomain when working with multiple schools to get the class records.
Get all classes in the school.
Args: school: School subdomain (only needed with multiple schools).
Returns: JSON array of lean class records
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| school | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation (getting all classes) and describes the return format as a 'JSON array of lean class records'. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, potential side effects, or scope constraints beyond the school parameter.
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 very concise, consisting of a single-line purpose, followed by clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is necessary and contributes to understanding. No extraneous information.
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 the presence of an output schema (which documents the return structure), the description is mostly complete for a simple list-all tool. It could be improved by mentioning if there is pagination, ordering, or any default filters, but for this tool it is adequate.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning the schema itself provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds meaning for the 'school' parameter, explaining it is a subdomain and only needed with multiple schools. This adds valuable context beyond the schema.
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 'Get all classes in the school', using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('classes'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_classrooms, get_subjects, etc., by its focus on classes.
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 guidance on the 'school' parameter ('only needed with multiple schools'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Usage is implied by the name and purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.