get_course_sectionRetrieve a course section by ID to view its details and read community data for that section.
Show a course section. Reads community data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Named private Circle account; selects credentials, not a remote community ID. | |
| section_id | Yes | ID of the course section |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile fully. 'Reads community data' restates the readOnly hint and adds nothing about credential resolution, response shape, or failure modes.
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 short sentences with the tool purpose front-loaded and no padding. However, the second sentence is close to content-free, so it is concise without being maximally informative.
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?
A simple two-parameter read tool whose schema, annotations, and rich sibling set carry most of the load, so minimal prose is tolerable. Still, there is no return-value expectation or relationship to course/lesson hierarchy, leaving the description adequate at best.
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%, so both parameters (account, section_id) are already documented in the schema, including the non-obvious point that 'account' selects credentials rather than a remote ID. The description adds no parameter meaning, which is the baseline expectation.
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?
States a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('a course section'), so it is distinguishable from the singular/plural sibling list_course_sections. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so it stops short of a 5.
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 and no mention of alternatives such as list_course_sections (for enumerating) or update_course_section (for mutation). The agent must infer the retrieval use case from the verb alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.