obs_list_registered_coursesRetrieve the courses you are registered for in OBS for a given semester; defaults to the latest term for quick enrollment review.
List courses registered in OBS for a semester (default: latest).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| semester | 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: -"obs_list_registered_coursesDictOutput"New value: +"obs_list_registered_coursesOutput"v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds only the 'default: latest' behaviour, which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about authentication requirements for OBS or pagination/size of the result.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the only qualifying detail about the optional parameter folded into a short parenthetical. No wasted words.
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 the description covers the scope and the no-argument default. The main omission is the semester value format, which is not covered by the schema either.
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?
With only one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the burden. It partially does: 'for a semester (default: latest)' tells the agent the parameter is optional and what happens when omitted, but it never specifies the accepted semester format (e.g. term code vs name), leaving a real gap.
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 courses registered in OBS, scoped to a semester. It is clear what it returns, but it does not distinguish itself from near-neighbours like obs_get_schedule, obs_get_registration_status or obs_get_registration_draft.
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 '(default: latest)' implies the tool is usable with no arguments and tells the agent what happens if semester is omitted. However, it gives no guidance on when to call this versus obs_get_schedule or the registration-draft/status tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.