get_course_class_filesList files and folders in a course's Ninova 'Sınıf Dosyaları' section, with optional recursive depth and compact output for quick course material browsing.
List files and folders under the Ninova 'Sınıf Dosyaları' section for a course.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| course | Yes | ||
| compact | No | ||
| max_depth | No | ||
| recursive | 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_course_class_filesDictOutput"New value: +"get_course_class_filesOutput"v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the section location and says nothing about behavior tied to the recursive/max_depth options or any auth/session requirements, so it adds little beyond structured fields.
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?
A single efficient sentence with no wasted words and the scope front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though thin given the parameter surface it needs to cover.
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 4-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. The output schema and annotations cover return shape and safety, but the behavioral meaning of the recursion/depth parameters is missing entirely.
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%, so the description must compensate, yet it only implies the 'course' parameter and says nothing about compact, max_depth, or recursive. Three optional parameters that materially change the listing behavior are left completely unexplained.
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 (List) and resource (files and folders) plus the exact Ninova section ('Sınıf Dosyaları') scoping it to a course. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling get_course_lesson_files, leaving the agent to guess which section each targets.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. With a sibling like get_course_lesson_files in the toolset, the description should route the agent but offers no condition for choosing this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.