Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
itu-mcp

itu-mcp

by yatuk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

List Degree Programs

list_degree_programs
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve official OBS degree-program codes for a given faculty and plan type, such as lisans, to identify programs before registration.

Instructions

List official OBS degree-program codes for a faculty and plan type (public).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "faculty_id": "<faculty_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_degree_programs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
plan_typeNolisans
faculty_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.2.1

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a public (unauthenticated) lookup, which is useful. It does not describe output format or rate/permission behavior, but with annotations the bar is lower.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though it could have spent a few words on parameter or usage detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

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, with 0% schema coverage and no usage routing, the agent still lacks what faculty_id and plan_type actually accept, leaving the definition only minimally complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning. It names 'faculty' and 'plan type' but gives no format, valid values, or the significance of the 'lisans' default, leaving the agent to guess plan_type tokens and faculty_id sourcing.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List official OBS degree-program codes'. The suffix '(public)' further scopes it. It does not explicitly name how it differs from list_degree_faculties or obs_list_programs, but the resource is clear enough to distinguish.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The '(public)' tag hints that no authentication is needed, but nothing tells the agent whether to prefer this over obs_list_programs or list_degree_faculties, nor what faculty_id scope means.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools