List all courses available on moodle.math.tusur.ru to identify and access course offerings.
Получить список курсов из moodle.math.tusur.ru
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_courses"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the read operation without mentioning whether authentication is required, whether only courses accessible to the current user are returned, whether pagination exists, or what the response items contain. The word 'list' implies read-only behavior, but explicit context is absent.
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 a single short sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource and is appropriately sized for a parameterless list tool.
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 zero-parameter read-only listing operation, the description provides the essential context: what to call and where the data comes from. It does not describe return fields, pagination, or authentication expectations, and there is no output schema to fill that gap, but the low complexity keeps this from being a major deficiency.
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?
The input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to explain. Per the rubric, a parameterless tool receives a baseline of 4 because no parameter documentation burden exists.
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 uses a specific verb ('Получить список' / 'get list') and resource ('курсов' / 'courses') plus a concrete source (moodle.math.tusur.ru). It is easily distinguished from siblings like list_course_modules, get_assignment_details, and download_course_files, which target different resources or actions.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of the alternatives. It does not mention that it is the entry point before listing course modules or downloading files, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites such as authentication.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.