guarani_encuestas_pendientesChecks if a student has mandatory institutional teaching surveys pending in SIU Guaraní, with optional career filtering.
Consulta si el alumno tiene encuestas docentes institucionales obligatorias o pendientes de responder en SIU Guaraní.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| carrera | No | Nombre o código de la carrera |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.8Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
- "additionalProperties": false,
- "properties": {
- "encuestas": {
- "type": "array"
- },
- "hayPendientes": {
- "type": "boolean"
- },
- "mensaje": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "hayPendientes",
- "encuestas",
- "mensaje"
- ],
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv1.0.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the useful nuance that the surveys are institutional and mandatory, but says nothing about response shape (e.g., whether it returns a flag, a list of courses, or deadlines).
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 well-formed sentence with the resource and its qualifiers front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter read-only lookup.
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 simple read-only check with no output schema and one optional parameter, the description conveys enough to invoke it correctly. The remaining gap is what the result contains (boolean vs. list of pending surveys), which an agent would have to discover at runtime.
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?
There is a single optional parameter 'carrera' with 100% schema description coverage ('Nombre o código de la carrera'), so the schema already carries the semantic load. The description never mentions the parameter, its purpose, or what happens when it is omitted (all careers? default?), adding nothing beyond the schema.
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 ('Consulta') and resource ('encuestas docentes institucionales obligatorias o pendientes') scoped to SIU Guaraní, so an agent knows it is a yes/no-style pending-survey check. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling questionnaires like eva_cuestionarios (EVA vs. Guaraní), leaving that separation implicit via the system name.
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?
Usage is implied: call it to check whether the student owes mandatory teaching surveys in Guaraní. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it or which sibling to use instead (e.g., eva_cuestionarios for EVA-side questionnaires), so the agent must infer routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.