get_course_message_boardRead course messages and threaded discussions from the Ninova 'Mesaj Panosu' board to check announcements and replies.
Read the Ninova 'Mesaj Panosu' page for a course.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| course | Yes | ||
| include_thread_details | 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_message_boardDictOutput"New value: +"get_course_message_boardOutput"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, so safety is covered. The description's 'Read' merely restates readOnlyHint and adds no new behavioral context such as pagination, authentication requirements, or what a scrape of the Ninova page entails.
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 short sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded. It is concise to the point of being under-specified rather than wasteful, so it lands at minimum-viable.
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 explained, and annotations cover safety, but for a three-parameter course tool in a very crowded sibling set the description supplies no usage routing and no parameter meaning at all.
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 there are three parameters, including the non-obvious include_thread_details flag and a limit with default 50. The description mentions none of them or their formats, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 (read) and a specific resource (the Ninova 'Mesaj Panosu' page) scoped to a course, which is more concrete than a tautology. It does not, however, differentiate itself from near siblings like get_course_announcements or read_page, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.
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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative. With siblings such as get_course_announcements, read_page, and get_course_overview competing for the same course-content intent, the description gives the agent nothing to arbitrate with.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.