get_dashboardRead the Ninova dashboard to summarize courses, announcements, assignments, and messages for İTÜ students.
Read the Ninova dashboard and summarize courses, recent announcements, assignments, and messages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| compact | 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_dashboardDictOutput"New value: +"get_dashboardOutput"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 that this is an aggregating read spanning four distinct content types, which is modest added context, but it says nothing about authentication requirements or rate/refresh behavior for what is clearly a session-bound scrape.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the content types listed after. No filler, though the sentence is a bare enumeration and could have carried one clause of guidance at no length cost.
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 formatting need not be explained, and the read/aggregate scope is stated. What remains missing is the meaning of 'compact' and any hint of prerequisites (e.g. authenticated Ninova session) for a tool with openWorldHint.
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?
The single parameter 'compact' has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description, so an agent has no idea what it does or when to enable it. With one undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate for the schema 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?
Specific verb ('Read') plus resource ('the Ninova dashboard') and an explicit enumeration of what gets summarized (courses, announcements, assignments, messages). It is distinguishable from narrow siblings such as get_dashboard_announcements and get_dashboard_assignments, though those siblings are never named.
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 given. The presence of get_dashboard_announcements and get_dashboard_assignments in the sibling list makes the 'overview vs. drill-down' choice an obvious question the description leaves unanswered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.