obs_get_campus_cardCheck campus card balance and recent transactions from OBS after login to understand your İTÜ spending.
Read campus card balance and recent transactions from OBS (requires login).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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: -"obs_get_campus_cardDictOutput"New value: +"obs_get_campus_cardOutput"v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the one thing annotations do not: that authentication is required before this call can succeed. It says nothing about transaction window or pagination, keeping it short of a 5.
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 sentence that leads with the operation and resource, then appends the one constraint that matters. Nothing is padded or repeated from the title.
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?
With an output schema present, return values need no prose explanation, and the zero-parameter surface means there is little else to document. The auth requirement is the key missing piece and it is stated; only the recency/scope of 'recent transactions' is left undefined.
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 tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter detail is possible or needed.
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 ('Read') plus two concrete resources ('campus card balance and recent transactions') and names the source system (OBS). No sibling tool in the list covers a campus card, so an agent can distinguish it immediately.
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?
The parenthetical '(requires login)' tells the agent a prerequisite exists, and there are no siblings competing for the same data. However, it never says how to satisfy that login or points to auth_status/refresh_session, so usage is only implied rather than directed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.