getcourse-mcp

by skiddgoddamn

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

gc_check_membership

Check if a user's email is a member of specified groups, returning instant membership status.

Instructions

Проверить, состоит ли пользователь (по email) в указанных группах (по списку пользователей — мгновенно).

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": {
      "email": "<email>",
      "groups": "<groups>"
    },
    "name": "gc_check_membership"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`email`	Yes	Email пользователя.
`groups`	Yes	Группы для проверки: [{id, name?}].

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a non-destructive check operation, but fails to mention return value format, authentication requirements, error handling, or rate limits. The term 'мгновенно' adds slight context, but overall transparency is average.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single sentence that conveys the core purpose, though the phrase 'по списку пользователей' may be slightly confusing (should be 'групп'). Still, it is concise and front-loaded with the action.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify what the agent can expect as a result (e.g., boolean, membership list). This is missing entirely. Additionally, it does not handle edge cases (e.g., invalid email, unknown groups). Given the simplicity of the tool, the omission is a significant gap.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with minimal descriptions. The description reinforces that 'email' identifies the user and 'groups' are the groups to check, but adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Проверить' (check) and resource 'membership in groups', with specific inputs (email and list of groups). It immediately distinguishes from sibling tools like gc_add_to_groups and gc_remove_from_groups, which modify membership.

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 context 'мгновенно' (instantly) implies a quick, read-only operation. The purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use this vs. sibling tools (e.g., for checking before adding/removing). However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.

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