Skip to main content
Glama
yatuk

itu-mcp

by yatuk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

OBS Advisor

obs_get_advisor
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve academic advisor details from İTÜ OBS to find the right contact for course, registration, or degree guidance.

Instructions

Read academic advisor information from OBS.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.2.1
    • removedOutput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -true
    • addedOutput schema / properties
      Added value: +{
+  "result": {
+    "additionalProperties": true,
+    "title": "Result",
+    "type": "object"
+  }
+}
    • addedOutput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "result"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / title
      Previous value: -"obs_get_advisorDictOutput"New value: +"obs_get_advisorOutput"
  2. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that — no hint about what advisor data is returned, whether it depends on the authenticated user, or freshness of the data.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single short sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and the resource. Nothing wasted, nothing needing reordering.

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

Completeness4/5

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 not be explained, and there are no parameters to document. For a simple authenticated read, the description is thin but sufficient; only the lack of any usage framing keeps it from being fully complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.

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 (read + academic advisor information) plus the source system (OBS). It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like obs_get_profile or obs_get_contacts, so an agent must infer the distinction rather than being told.

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 guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as obs_get_contacts or obs_get_profile. The agent gets no help deciding when this tool is the right one.

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