List saved course files with local paths, source pages, sizes, and SHA-256 checksums to verify downloads and organize study materials.
List saved course files with their local paths, source pages, sizes and SHA-256 checksums.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Input schema / properties / item_id / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / item_id / oneOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / item_id / titleRemoved value: -"Item Id"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"study_downloadsArguments"v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the returned fields (local paths, checksums), which implies there are no side effects on the file system or remote sources. It does not, however, describe any ordering, pagination, or scale limits on the list.
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. The returned fields are enumerated efficiently, and there is no preamble or repetition.
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 read-only listing tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description is close to adequate but has clear gaps: it does not explain the item_id filter, does not state ordering or scope, and does not differentiate the tool from download-oriented siblings. It stops at what the tool returns without saying how to use it.
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% and the single parameter 'item_id' is completely undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description does not explain what item_id filters by (a specific course file, folder, or source page) or that omitting it lists everything. This leaves a meaningful gap for an agent trying to scope the list.
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 ('saved course files') with the fields returned (paths, source pages, sizes, SHA-256 checksums). This distinguishes it from download-oriented siblings like study_download_resource and study_download_files by making clear it's a listing of already-downloaded files, though it doesn't name those siblings 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?
Implies usage as a read/list operation of local saved files, but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives like study_download_files for initiating downloads or study_read_file for opening a specific file. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.