Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
itu-mcp

itu-mcp

by yatuk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Archive: List Terms

archive_list_terms
Read-onlyIdempotent

List every term in the İTÜ course archive, including inactive and unpublished terms, to find valid term slugs for other archive tools.

Instructions

List every term held in the İTÜ ders arşivi (2016-2017 onward), including terms OBS no longer publishes and terms not yet active. Use this to find valid term slugs like '2025-2026-guz' for the other archive tools.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "archive_list_terms"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.2.1

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
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), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context that annotations cannot express: it returns historical terms OBS no longer publishes plus not-yet-active terms, which matters for downstream calls.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, zero waste, and the core scope statement is front-loaded before the usage hint. Sized exactly to the tool's simplicity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

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 explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. For a zero-parameter listing tool, the description covers scope, inclusion of unpublished terms, and downstream purpose completely.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-wise to clarify, and the description correctly adds no spurious parameter discussion.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (list every term in the İTÜ ders arşivi) and scopes it precisely (2016-2017 onward, including unpublished and not-yet-active terms). An agent can distinguish it from archive_term_sections or archive_search_courses without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly routes usage: 'Use this to find valid term slugs like 2025-2026-guz for the other archive tools,' establishing it as a prerequisite lookup step. It does not state exclusions or when not to use it, but the intended context is unambiguous.

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