obs_list_programsRetrieve a student's OBS academic programs, such as undergraduate major, to verify enrollment and program details.
List the student's OBS academic programs (e.g. undergraduate major).
| 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_list_programsDictOutput"New value: +"obs_list_programsOutput"v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that these are the *student's* own enrolled programs (personal OBS data) rather than a general catalog, which is mild but genuine context; nothing about scope, caching, or failure modes is added.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the parenthetical example earns its place by disambiguating 'program'. It is arguably a touch terse for the ambiguity it leaves with sibling list tools, but there is no padding.
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 not be explained, and a zero-parameter read tool is inherently simple. What is missing is any differentiation from the other program/degree listing tools in the sibling set, which is the main residual risk for correct selection.
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, so there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not waste space describing nonexistent inputs.
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 (List) and resource (the student's OBS academic programs) with a concrete example ('undergraduate major'), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as list_degree_programs or list_degree_faculties, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.
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 description gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative. With siblings like list_degree_programs and list_degree_faculties in the same catalog, the absence of any routing cue leaves the choice to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.