get_course_infoRetrieves structured information from a course's Sınıf Bilgileri page, providing ITU students with organized course details.
Return structured information from a course's 'Sınıf Bilgileri' page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| course | Yes |
| 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_infoDictOutput"New value: +"get_course_infoOutput"v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no mention of auth requirements, scoping (own courses vs. any course), or freshness of the scraped page.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing information noted elsewhere.
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?
The tool is structurally simple (one param) with a full output schema and rich annotations, so return values and safety need not be described. However, given ~90 sibling tools including several near-duplicate course getters, the description is not complete enough for an agent to choose this one confidently.
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% for the single 'course' parameter, and the description does not compensate at all — it never says whether 'course' expects a course code, a numeric ID, or a name, nor gives an example. This is a real gap for the one input the caller must supply.
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 verb+resource ('Return structured information from a course's page') is identifiable, but 'structured information' is vague and the tool is not distinguished from near-identical siblings like get_course_overview, get_course_sections, or get_course_grades. Referencing the 'Sınıf Bilgileri' page adds a little specificity about the data source but not about the content returned.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many sibling course tools, nor any prerequisites (e.g., must the student be enrolled, must a session be authenticated). The agent is left to infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.