get_course_lesson_filesList files and folders in a course’s Ninova 'Ders Dosyaları' section to browse and retrieve lesson materials, with optional recursive depth control.
List files and folders under the Ninova 'Ders 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_lesson_filesDictOutput"New value: +"get_course_lesson_filesOutput"v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the scope ('Ders Dosyaları' section) and says nothing about recursion behavior, depth limits, or result size, which is the one piece of behavior an agent would actually need here.
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 the scope qualifier placed before the noun; no filler or redundancy.
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 values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. Still, for a 4-parameter, open-world listing tool the description omits traversal semantics and sibling disambiguation, leaving it only minimally complete.
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 the description mentions none of the four parameters — notably 'recursive' (default true) and 'max_depth' (default 3), which materially change what is returned. The description must compensate for the empty schema and 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 gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('files and folders') and scopes it to a named Ninova section, so an agent knows exactly what surface it reads. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the very similar sibling 'get_course_class_files', leaving ambiguity between the two.
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 alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. enrollment/auth), and no exclusion note. With a near-identical sibling ('get_course_class_files') present, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.