list_coursesFetch all discovered Ninova courses from the dashboard; cached by default, with an optional refresh for current data.
List all discovered Ninova courses from the dashboard (TTL-cached).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| refresh | 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: -"list_coursesDictOutput"New value: +"list_coursesOutput"v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context ('TTL-cached'), but it fails to explain the interaction between that cache and the refresh parameter, which is the key behavior an agent would need.
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 compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and the caching caveat in parentheses. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably under-specified rather than merely concise.
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 no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a cache-backed listing tool the description should say what refresh does and what staleness to expect — that gap keeps it at minimum-viable.
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 is one parameter ('refresh') whose purpose the description never addresses. The 'TTL-cached' note hints at a cache-bypass semantic but does not state that refresh forces a live fetch, leaving the parameter effectively undocumented.
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 and resource ('List all discovered Ninova courses from the dashboard'), which is clearly distinct from write-oriented siblings like sync_all_courses or crawl_course. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling it contrasts with, but the scope is unambiguous.
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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as sync_all_courses (which presumably populates the cache) or obs_list_registered_courses. The only contextual clue is the parenthetical 'TTL-cached', which implies stale results but never states when a caller should prefer a fresh sync.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.