Retrieve a learning path's full structure—outlines and tasks—as a compact tree to get the IDs required for making changes.
Lädt einen Lernpfad mit vollständigem Aufbau (Gliederungen → Aufgaben) als kompakten Baum. IDs daraus werden für Änderungen benötigt.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Lernpfad-ID (LI-…) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the whole burden. It does disclose the return shape (a compact tree spanning Gliederungen down to Aufgaben) and that 'Lädt' is a read, but says nothing about permissions, depth/size limits, or behavior on an unknown or inaccessible ID.
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, zero filler, with the structural scope front-loaded and the follow-up use case second. Nothing repeats the name or 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?
For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is returned (hierarchical tree) and why it matters (IDs for mutations). A brief note on response depth or error cases would close the remaining gap.
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 coverage is 100% with a single well-documented required parameter ("Lernpfad-ID (LI-…)"), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no format, validation, or sourcing detail beyond referencing that IDs come from the tree.
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 and resource ("Lädt einen Lernpfad") plus scope ("vollständigem Aufbau (Gliederungen → Aufgaben) als kompakten Baum"), which implicitly separates it from scobees_list_lernpfade and scobees_get_aufgabe. No sibling is named explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than declared.
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?
"IDs daraus werden für Änderungen benötigt" gives a concrete workflow cue: call this before update/move/delete operations to obtain the Gliederung and Aufgabe IDs. It never states when NOT to use it or names a competing tool, so it falls short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.