get_dashboard_announcementsRetrieve announcements from the Ninova dashboard's aggregated page, with optional result limit and full-text inclusion.
Return the announcements listed under the Ninova dashboard's aggregated announcements page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| include_full_text | 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_dashboard_announcementsDictOutput"New value: +"get_dashboard_announcementsOutput"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 phrase 'aggregated announcements page' adds a small hint that results are assembled from multiple sources, but nothing about freshness, ordering, or pagination is disclosed.
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 efficient sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is well-formed, though very short given how much is left unspecified.
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-value shape need not be described. However, against a large sibling set of announcement-related tools, the description omits both usage routing and any explanation of its two undocumented parameters, leaving the definition only marginally sufficient.
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 neither parameter (limit, include_full_text) is mentioned in the description. Defaults are visible in the schema, but the description does nothing to explain what 'full text' means or how limit affects the aggregated result, 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 (Return) and a specific resource (announcements listed under the Ninova dashboard's aggregated announcements page). This implicitly separates it from course-level siblings like get_course_announcements and get_itu_announcements, though it never names them explicitly.
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 at all. With near-identical siblings (get_course_announcements, get_itu_announcements, get_updates, get_dashboard), the agent gets no rule for choosing this tool over those.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.