get_course_sectionsList the direct course routes exposed on a Ninova course home page for a given course.
List the direct course routes exposed on the Ninova course home 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_sectionsDictOutput"New value: +"get_course_sectionsOutput"v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the mild scoping detail that results come from the Ninova course home page; it says nothing about freshness, caching, or coverage limits. An output schema exists, so return details are not required 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 short sentence with no wasted words and a front-loaded verb. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined concision.
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?
With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, but the description still leaves the core noun ('routes') undefined and the required course parameter format unaddressed. For a one-required-param tool with zero schema coverage, more context is needed.
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 single required 'course' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The description gives no hint about the accepted identifier format (course code, numeric ID, slug), so the agent cannot reliably populate it.
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 'List' and the resource (course sections, per the name) are present, but the description calls them 'direct course routes exposed on the Ninova course home page,' which is opaque terminology that doesn't clearly match the tool name or distinguish it from siblings like find_open_course_sections or archive_term_sections. An agent can guess the general domain but not precisely what a 'route' is here.
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, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is provided, despite a dense family of related siblings (find_open_course_sections, watch_course_sections, archive_search_sections). The agent is left to infer the use case entirely on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.