Fetch official campus service entries or saved source links for reference, and route normal study work to live school content tools.
Get an official service entry or saved source link for reference. Normal Work usage reads live content with the plugin-owned school tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No | learn | |
| 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 / properties / target / titleRemoved value: -"Target"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"study_routeArguments"v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns an official service entry or saved source link for reference, which clarifies the output type, but it does not explain return format, pagination, permissions, or other operational details.
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?
The description is only two sentences and is front-loaded with a purpose statement. It avoids clutter, though the second sentence is somewhat cryptic and could be clearer for the space it consumes.
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 tool with two undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain parameter meanings, expected return shape, or how to choose this tool over the many study_* siblings; the annotations cover safety but not invocation semantics.
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 description says nothing about the two parameters 'target' and 'item_id'. With no schema documentation and no compensating description, an agent has no guidance on what values are valid or how the parameters affect the result.
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 states the verb 'Get' and a resource ('official service entry or saved source link'), but the tool name 'study_route' and the concept of routing remain ambiguous. It does not clearly distinguish itself from siblings such as study_read_service, study_read_resource, or study_live_resources; the reference to 'plugin-owned school tools' is indirect at best.
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 second sentence implies this tool is for reference material rather than live content, and that normal live content reads should use the plugin-owned school tools. However, no specific alternative tool is named, and the phrase 'Normal Work usage' is vague, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is actually appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.