Lists subjects/courses, optionally filtered by learning area (workspace_id), so teachers can select the subject for a new learning path.
Listet Fächer (Kurse), optional gefiltert auf einen Lernbereich. Die Lehrkraft wählt hieraus das Fach, in dem ein Lernpfad angelegt wird.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workspace_id | No | Lernbereich-ID (LB-…), optional |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden; it does signal that this is a read/list operation and that filtering is optional rather than required. However, it says nothing about scope (all subjects vs. only those visible to the teacher/workspace), result ordering, or volume, which matters for a picker an agent must act on.
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; the core capability and optional filter are front-loaded, and the follow-on sentence earns its place by giving usage context. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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-optional-parameter, non-destructive list tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description covers what it returns conceptually and how to narrow it. Only the visibility/scope of the returned subjects is left implicit, which is a minor gap at this complexity.
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% and the single parameter already documents itself as an optional Lernbereich-ID. The description only restates the optional Lernbereich filtering already present in the schema, adding no format or behavior detail beyond it – the baseline 3 fits.
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 ("Listet Fächer (Kurse)") plus the optional narrowing dimension (Lernbereich). The resource is clearly distinct from sibling list tools (workspaces, tags, lernpfade), though no sibling is named explicitly as an alternative.
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 supplies concrete context: this is the picker the teacher uses to choose the subject in which a Lernpfad will be created, which situates it at the start of the create_lernpfad flow. No explicit when-not or exclusions are given, but the usage context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.