get_assignment_upload_slotsList an assignment's upload slots on its Ödevi Yükle / OdevGonder page, showing filled slots and allowed extensions.
List the file slots on an assignment's 'Ödevi Yükle / OdevGonder' page, including which slots are already filled and allowed extensions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| course | No | ||
| assignment | No | ||
| upload_url | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Output schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -trueOutput schema / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "result": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "title": "Result",
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+}Output schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "result"
+]Output schema / titlePrevious value: -"get_assignment_upload_slotsDictOutput"New value: +"get_assignment_upload_slotsOutput"v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result includes which slots are filled and allowed extensions, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, but it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states what the tool returns. It's appropriately sized and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured with usage guidance.
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?
An output schema exists, so return value details need not be explained. However, for a tool with three undocumented parameters and no usage guidance, the description leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly, especially regarding when to use it versus submit_assignment.
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 description coverage is 0% and all three parameters (course, assignment, upload_url) are undocumented. The description doesn't explain what these parameters mean, whether any are required, or how to supply them. With zero schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: listing file slots on an assignment's upload page, and it names the relevant page identifiers. It distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_assignment (which writes) by being a read/list operation, though it doesn't explicitly call out that relationship.
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 description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It doesn't mention the sibling tool submit_assignment, nor does it explain whether this should be called before uploading or as part of a workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.