Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
USC WebReg/Course Catalog MCP

USC WebReg/Course Catalog MCP

by shreeyachand
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_section_fees

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve tuition and fee items attached to a specific course section by providing its SIS section ID.

Instructions

Get the fees for a single course section by its SIS section id (the 'sisSectionId' field on a section, e.g. '29934'). Returns any tuition/fee items attached to the section.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "sectionId": "<sectionId>"
    },
    "name": "get_section_fees"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sectionIdYesSIS section id from a section's 'sisSectionId' field.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by saying what the call returns—any tuition/fee items attached to the section—which is useful because there is no output schema. It does not mention empty-result behavior, but that is minor for a simple read.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, with the core purpose in the first sentence and the return value in the second. The example is embedded naturally and there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns and the exact identifier needed. There are no nested objects, enums, or required alternatives to explain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already documents sectionId as the SIS section id with 100% coverage. The description repeats this and adds a concrete example ('29934'), which is a small helpful addition but not substantial beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the fees for a single course section.' It also names the exact lookup key, SIS section id, which separates it from the other get/list tools for terms, schools, programs, and courses.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The intended use is clear: retrieve fees for one section by sisSectionId. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to an alternative, but no sibling tool covers section fees, so this is enough context to route an agent correctly.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools