Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
getcourse-mcp

getcourse-mcp

by skiddgoddamn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

gc_copy_access

Copies access groups from a reference student to a target student, with optional filter by group name and dry run preview.

Instructions

Выдать пользователю такой же доступ, как у эталонного ученика (копирует его группы). filter — только группы с подстрокой. dryRun — предпросмотр.

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": {
      "fromEmail": "<fromEmail>",
      "toEmail": "<toEmail>"
    },
    "name": "gc_copy_access"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dryRunNoПоказать, что будет добавлено, без сохранения.
filterNoКопировать только группы, чьё название содержит подстроку.
toEmailYesКому выдать такие же группы.
fromEmailYesЭталонный ученик, чьи группы копируем.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions copying groups (mutation) and provides dryRun for preview, which is good. However, it does not clarify if groups are added or replaced, nor does it describe permissions needed or side effects.

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?

The description is very concise, with two sentences that front-load the main purpose and then specify optional parameters. No wasted words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is fairly complete for a simple tool. But it lacks details on whether access is additive or replacive, error cases, and return behavior.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds meaning: filter is substring match, dryRun is preview without saving. This adds value 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 clearly states the tool copies access from a reference user to another user by copying groups. It specifies optional filtering and dry-run capability. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that add users to individual groups.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for bulk copying of access but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like gc_add_to_groups. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use.

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