Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
itu-mcp

itu-mcp

by yatuk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Archive: Grade Distribution

archive_grade_distribution
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve archived İTÜ course grade distributions by exact course code, showing per-term letter-grade counts, published totals, percentages, and OBS source links.

Instructions

Letter grade counts for a course across the terms the archive has (from 2023-2024 on): per term the counts, published total, percentages, and the OBS source URL. Only the exact code is used; a Turkish/English sibling such as 'BLG 212' vs 'BLG 212E' is listed under 'related_codes', never merged, and 'same_counts_as' marks terms where the archive stores identical numbers under both codes (do not add them up). Grade labels are passed through as published, including the '+' grades; a label absent from a term was not published and is not zero. 'total_mismatch' flags terms where the published total differs from the sum of the counts; both numbers are kept. Check 'coverage': 'branch_grades_missing' means no grades file was ever recorded for the branch.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "course_code": "<course_code>"
    },
    "name": "archive_grade_distribution"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
termNo
course_codeYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.2.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), but the description adds real behavioral context an agent cannot get elsewhere: same_counts_as terms must not be summed, absent labels mean 'not published' rather than zero, total_mismatch keeps both figures, and coverage can report branch_grades_missing. It does not mention auth or pagination, so not a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded and nearly every clause carries a real caveat (related_codes, same_counts_as, total_mismatch, coverage). It is delivered as one dense semicolon-chained paragraph rather than clearly separated sentences, which slightly hurts scanability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be restated, yet the description still supplies the semantic meaning behind its flags, which is the genuinely useful part. The main remaining gap is the optional 'term' parameter's format and default behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It clarifies course_code semantics ('only the exact code is used', Turkish/English siblings go under related_codes) and hints that terms look like '2023-2024', but never documents the optional 'term' parameter's format or what omitting it does. Partial compensation warrants the baseline 3.

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?

States a precise verb+resource+scope: letter grade counts for a course across the terms the archive holds (from 2023-2024 on). The 'archive' framing implicitly separates it from live-data siblings like obs_get_grade_distribution, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains how to interpret the returned data but never says when to call this tool versus alternatives such as obs_get_grade_distribution or get_course_grades. There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite (e.g., archive availability) guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools