Load a single task with its Serlo worksheet as Markdown, links, and attachments. Use it to inspect existing tasks before making changes.
Lädt eine einzelne Aufgabe inkl. Arbeitsblatt (Serlo) als Markdown, Links und Anhängen. Für Änderungen an bestehenden Aufgaben.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Aufgaben-ID (LI-…) | |
| mit_serlo_json | No | zusätzlich das rohe Serlo-JSON ausgeben |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the return content (Markdown worksheet, links, attachments), which is the key behavioral trait here. It does not cover failure modes such as a missing/invalid Aufgabe-ID or auth requirements, but for a read operation it gives solid disclosure.
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 compact sentences, zero filler, with what the tool returns front-loaded ahead of the workflow hint. Nothing is redundant with the title.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must characterize returns — it does so at a high level (Markdown, links, attachments). Between that and the fully documented two-parameter schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only edge-case behavior around invalid IDs is unaddressed.
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% and both parameters are self-documenting in the schema (Aufgaben-ID with LI-… format, mit_serlo_json flag). The description adds nothing beyond that, 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?
States a specific verb ('Lädt') and resource ('eine einzelne Aufgabe') and enumerates the payload (Arbeitsblatt als Markdown, Links, Anhänge), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It is clearly distinct from sibling scobees_get_lernpfad by resource, but the description never names an alternative to sharpen the boundary.
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 second sentence ('Für Änderungen an bestehenden Aufgaben') implies a read-before-update workflow, which is a real usage cue. However, it gives no explicit when-not condition and does not point at scobees_update_aufgabe or scobees_create_aufgabe as the follow-up, leaving the routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.