obs_list_semestersLists academic semesters from OBS for a student's account, enabling them to view their enrollment periods.
List academic semesters available in OBS for the student.
| 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_semestersDictOutput"New value: +"obs_list_semestersOutput"v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description carries little burden. It adds that results are scoped to the authenticated student in OBS, which is useful context, but does not describe ordering, filtering, or return characteristics.
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 efficient sentence with no waste, front-loading the verb and resource. Every word earns its place for a zero-parameter listing tool.
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 zero parameters, an output schema present, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient. It could add a note on what the semester entries represent, but the output schema handles return values.
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 the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond confirming the scope is the current student.
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 ('academic semesters') with the OBS context and student scope. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling listing tools like archive_list_terms.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tools are named. The only implied usage is that an agent would call it to enumerate semesters, but nothing tells it when this is preferable to alternatives such as archive_list_terms or get_academic_calendar.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.