Retrieve upcoming and overdue Moodle assignment and quiz deadlines. Use days_back to include overdue items; confirm critical dates before submitting work.
Unfinished assignment/quiz deadlines from the Moodle timeline. days_back > 0 also returns overdue items. Dates here can lag edits teachers make; confirm critical ones with moodle_assignment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| course_id | No | ||
| days_back | No | ||
| days_ahead | 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 and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that — data staleness ('dates can lag edits teachers make') and conditional result scope ('days_back > 0 also returns overdue items'). It does not mention auth requirements, result volume, or pagination, so it is good rather than exhaustive.
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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The inclusion of the days_back rule in the opening sentence is slightly utilitarian rather than tidy, but every clause carries 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?
With no output schema and thin annotations, the description should do more: it never describes what a returned deadline entry contains or how results are ordered. It covers purpose, freshness caveat, and a cross-check path, which is adequate but leaves gaps an agent would need.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It explains days_back's behavioral effect well (values > 0 pull in overdue items), but course_id and days_ahead — including the default 14-day forward window — are left entirely unexplained.
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 (unfinished assignment/quiz deadlines) scoped to the Moodle timeline, which is a narrower thing than the sibling moodle_assignments' likely full assignment listing. It also names moodle_assignment as the tool to use for authoritative confirmation, so the agent can separate the two without opening a schema.
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?
Gives clear context for use (checking upcoming/overdue unfinished work) and explicitly routes the agent to moodle_assignment when a deadline is critical, which is the key decision point. It stops short of saying when this tool should not be used at all (e.g. for grades or announcements, which other siblings cover).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.