Retrieve the current school year (starting year) for a specified school or the active subdomain. This read-only call helps agents anchor academic dates in EduPage workflows.
Return the current school year (starting year). Read-only.
Args: subdomain: School to query (defaults to the active subdomain).
Returns: dict: {'school_year': , 'subdomain': ...}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| subdomain | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Input schema / properties / subdomain / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / subdomain / typeRemoved value: -"string"v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only' line is largely redundant. It does add the return shape ({'school_year': <int>, 'subdomain': ...}), which is genuinely useful since no output schema exists, but it says nothing about caching, staleness, or auth.
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?
Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by clean Args/Returns sections. Slight redundancy in restating 'Read-only' from the annotations, but overall tight and well-organized.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape and the parameter default, which is everything an agent needs to call it and consume the result.
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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does: it explains subdomain means 'School to query' and that it 'defaults to the active subdomain'. That clarifies defaulting behavior the schema's bare null default does not.
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 and resource ('Return the current school year (starting year)') and even disambiguates the value semantics by defining school year as the starting year. None of the sibling tools offer this, so an agent can route to it unambiguously.
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 implied by the getter nature and the note that subdomain 'defaults to the active subdomain', but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. Adequate minimum-viable coverage for a simple read.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.