Retrieve a specific Brightspace assignment, including your submission history and available assessment feedback, by providing course and assignment IDs.
Read one assignment including your submission history and available assessment feedback.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| courseId | Yes | Exact Brightspace numeric identifier from another tool. | |
| assignmentId | Yes | Exact Brightspace numeric identifier from another tool. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context above that by specifying the exact payload (submission history and feedback), which is helpful but does not need to restate the annotation traits. No contradictions with 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?
A single, well-crafted sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. There is no unneeded explanation or fluff, and it fully communicates the key distinction of the 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?
The description honestly covers what a caller should expect: specific assignment, submission history, and feedback. It excludes an exhaustive list of all response fields, but since there is no output schema, the description does most of the needed work for a simple read-only operation. It does not mention edge cases like missing feedback or multiple submissions, but that is borderline.
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%: both courseId and assignmentId already carry clear and identical descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no further parameter detail, so the baseline of 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?
The description uses a clear imperative ('Read') with a specific resource ('one assignment') and distinguishes itself from list_assignments by explicitly including submission history and assessment feedback. It leaves no doubt about the tool's role among its siblings.
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?
The description states the purpose and scope, so an agent could infer when to call it (when a specific assignment's details are needed). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use exclusions, which is the only gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.