get_course_lessonRetrieves a course lesson from a Circle community using its lesson ID, returning the lesson content and details for display or review.
Show a course lesson. Reads community data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Named private Circle account; selects credentials, not a remote community ID. | |
| lesson_id | Yes | ID of the course lesson |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only a vague scope note ("reads community data") and says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or which lesson fields come back. Modest value on top of rich annotations.
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?
Two very short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no padding. However, "Reads community data" earns little and the overall terseness trends toward under-specification rather than genuine concision.
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 2-parameter read-only tool with no output schema and strong annotations, this is close to adequate, but it never says what a fetched lesson contains (video, text, section linkage) or whether the account resolves community scope. An agent can call it, but with more inference than necessary.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%: lesson_id is documented as the lesson ID and account as a named private Circle account selecting credentials. The description adds no parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
"Show a course lesson" gives a specific verb plus resource, and the singular "lesson" naturally separates it from list_course_lessons and the create/update/delete_course_lesson siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming how it differs from get_course_section, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is given: nothing says to pick this over list_course_lessons (to browse) or update_course_lesson (to edit). "Reads community data" describes mechanics, not the condition or context for invoking the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.