List available cint University lessons from CU-000.2 to CU-401.2, optionally filter by course ID and include detailed objectives.
List available cint University lessons (CU-000.2 to CU-401.2).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| course | No | Course ID filter (e.g. 'CU-000', 'CU-101', 'CU-201', 'CU-301', 'CU-401') | |
| verbose | No | If true, include detailed lesson objectives |
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 behavioral burden. 'List' implies a safe read, but the definition says nothing about pagination, result ordering, whether the course filter is required to narrow output, or permission needs.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a tool with zero annotations.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should compensate more: it does not explain default behavior (all lessons when 'course' is omitted) or the shape of results. Adequate to identify the tool, but thin for calling it confidently.
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 100%, with both 'course' (with example IDs) and 'verbose' fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond noting the overall ID scope.
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 ('List') and resource ('cint University lessons') with a concrete ID range (CU-000.2 to CU-401.2). It is clearly distinct in resource from siblings like cint_get_recipe or cint_get_doc, though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to an alternative tool (e.g. cint_get_doc for a single lesson). The agent must infer the intended context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.