Retrieve the framework specifications for building SCORM 1.2 compliant interactive activities, including responsive 16:9 layout standards, corporate color palette, and optional shell flags for audio, scoring, and buttons.
Eğiteknoloji 16:9 responsive arayüz standartlarını, kurumsal renk paletini, SCORM 1.2 kurallarını ve opsiyonel shell bayraklarını (ses, puan, butonlar vb.) getirir.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-only retrieval operation and lists the returned content categories, but it does not describe the output format, error conditions, or any domain-specific caveats such as SCORM version implications.
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?
A single compact sentence enumerates all the spec categories without filler or repetition. The key object ('framework specs') and its components are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema retrieval tool, the description provides enough content detail for an agent to know what to expect. It could be stronger by stating the response shape or noting that this spec should be fetched before scaffolding, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.
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 tool takes zero parameters, and the input schema is an empty object, so schema coverage is trivially complete. The description adds value by indicating what the retrieved spec contains, which is above the baseline needed for a parameterless tool.
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 names a specific retrieval action ('getirir') and a concrete resource: Eğiteknoloji 16:9 interface standards, brand palette, SCORM 1.2 rules, and optional shell flags. This clearly identifies what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like list_activity_templates or scaffold_interactive_activity.
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?
There is no statement about when to call this tool, when not to call it, or how it relates to alternatives such as scaffolding an activity. The only guidance is implicit in the name and description, so an agent has to infer the appropriate moment to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.