IE Student MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

blackboard_dashboard

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get a bounded summary of Blackboard identity, courses, to-do items, recent activity, and messages to review your academic status quickly.

Instructions

Blackboard identity, courses, to-do, activity and message summary (bounded output).

Tool call template

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": "blackboard_dashboard"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Default
`ok`	No
`data`	No
`error`	No
`message`	No
`service`	No	local
`warnings`	No
`truncated`	No
`next_action`	No
`next_offset`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context by stating that the output is a 'bounded summary' spanning multiple domains, which sets expectations about scope and output size without contradicting the annotations.

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 a single front-loaded phrase of under fifteen words. It contains no filler, repetition, or unnecessary clauses, and every word contributes to defining the tool's scope.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given that the tool has no parameters, an output schema is present, and annotations cover the safety profile, the description names all included content domains and the bounded nature of the result. It is sufficient for invocation, though the exact meaning of 'bounded' could be slightly clearer.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the tool as an aggregate summary covering several specific Blackboard domains: identity, courses, to-do, activity, and messages. This clearly distinguishes it from the individual blackboard_* list tools, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'return'.

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 term 'dashboard' and 'summary' imply use for a consolidated overview rather than detailed data retrieval, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative tool. An agent must infer that detailed course or message data lives in sibling tools.

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