itu-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Check Course Conflicts

check_course_conflicts

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check for schedule time conflicts between courses by CRN. Enter multiple CRNs to detect overlapping days, times, and rooms from the public course schedule.

Instructions

Check for schedule time conflicts between courses by CRN. Uses the public course schedule to look up session day/time/room.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`crns`	Yes
`program_type`	No	LS
`department_code`	No	BLG
`department_codes`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedv1.2.1Oct 14, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / department_codes

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Department Codes"
+}

removedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -true
```

addedOutput schema / properties

Added value: +{
+  "result": {
+    "additionalProperties": true,
+    "title": "Result",
+    "type": "object"
+  }
+}

addedOutput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "result"
+]
```

changedOutput schema / title

Previous value: -"check_course_conflictsDictOutput"New value: +"check_course_conflictsOutput"

Addedv0.2.3Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the data source ('public course schedule' for day/time/room), implying results may not reflect a student's personal registration record, but it says nothing about auth requirements, invalid-CRN handling, or result granularity.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the data-source detail second. No filler, though the second sentence could carry a bit more of the missing parameter context at negligible cost.

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

Completeness3/5

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 described. However, with three undocumented input parameters and no guidance on how conflicting CRNs outside the given department/program are treated, the definition is only minimally complete for a 4-parameter tool.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only clarifies that crns are CRN identifiers. The roles of program_type, department_code and department_codes (with defaults LS/BLG) are left completely unexplained, leaving most parameters ambiguous.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Check for schedule time conflicts between courses') and pins the identifier type ('by CRN'), so it is distinguishable from neighbors like get_public_course_schedule or obs_validate_registration_plan. It never explicitly names a sibling it is not, which keeps it 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 Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the pre-registration conflict check, and the description notes the data comes from the public schedule. There is no statement of when to prefer this over obs_validate_registration_plan or find_open_course_sections, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server