Retrieve full details for a Moodle assignment by assign_id or cmid, including instructions, attachments, deadlines, submission types, submitted work, grades, and feedback.
One assignment in full: instructions, attachment files, dates, time remaining, accepted submission types, what's already submitted, grade and feedback. Pass assign_id or cmid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cmid | No | ||
| assign_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing the returned payload (submission state, grade, feedback), which matters with no output schema present; it does not, however, mention permission/authentication requirements for viewing grades.
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?
Two sentences, no filler. The dense field enumeration is front-loaded and each listed item conveys distinct return content; the invocation sentence is short and follows naturally.
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 output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing return values and does so thoroughly. The remaining gap is the 0%-covered parameter pair, whose distinct meanings are not resolved, and no note on error behavior when neither identifier is given.
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% and neither parameter is required, so the description must compensate. It names both parameters and implies they are interchangeable ('Pass assign_id or cmid'), which is real added value, but it never explains what cmid is (course module id) versus assign_id, nor what happens if both or neither are supplied.
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 resource and scope ('One assignment in full') and enumerates exactly what is returned: instructions, attachments, dates, submission types, submissions, grade and feedback. This singular, detail-level framing clearly distinguishes it from the plural sibling moodle_assignments and from moodle_deadlines.
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 only guidance is 'Pass assign_id or cmid,' which tells the agent how to invoke it, not when to choose it. There is no mention of when to prefer this over moodle_assignments, moodle_deadlines, or moodle_course_contents, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.