get_course_remote_learningFetches the Ninova distance learning page for a specified course, helping İTÜ students check remote-learning details and materials.
Read the Ninova 'Uzaktan Eğitim' page for a course.
| 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_remote_learningDictOutput"New value: +"get_course_remote_learningOutput"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 the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no note on authentication requirements, what the page contains, or whether the course must be one the user is enrolled in. With annotations carrying the safety load, the description contributes almost nothing extra.
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, which is appropriately tight given the simplicity of the tool. Its brevity is the issue only insofar as it is under-specified, not because it wastes words.
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, but the definition still leaves the single required parameter format undocumented and does not distinguish this page reader from its many siblings. For a tool whose one input is completely unspecified, this is incomplete.
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?
There is one required parameter ('course') and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden — yet it only says 'for a course', restating the parameter name. It gives no hint whether the value is a course code, CRN, numeric ID, or name, leaving the agent to guess the format.
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 names a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource (the Ninova 'Uzaktan Eğitim' page) scoped to a course, which is clearer than a generic 'get course X'. However, it offers no differentiation from the many sibling get_course_* page readers (get_course_info, get_course_announcements, etc.) or from crawl_course/read_page, so an agent must infer which page this 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?
There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-selection guidance. The agent is not told why it would pick this remote-learning page over read_page, crawl_course, or another get_course_* reader, nor any precondition (e.g., enrollment in the course).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.