search_itu_directoryLook up people in the official İTÜ public directory by first and last name through a CSRF-protected form, with optional detail fields.
Search the official public İTÜ directory using its CSRF-protected form.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| last_name | Yes | ||
| first_name | Yes | ||
| identity_type | No | all | |
| include_details | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds one useful trait—that lookups hit a live CSRF-protected form (explaining the live-scrape nature)—but says nothing about rate limits, pagination, or result shape. Modest added value against a low bar.
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 waste. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.
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 described, and annotations carry the safety profile, but for a 5-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no usage guidance the description is too thin to call confidently.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 5 parameters, and the description names none of them. It does not explain identity_type values, what include_details toggles, or how limit behaves, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap; only the self-evident param names carry meaning.
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 (search) and resource (İTÜ directory) and notes it is the official public directory. An agent can distinguish it from the many obs_/course/library siblings, though it never clarifies it is a person lookup keyed on name (the required params imply this only implicitly).
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no indication of when this beats e.g. search_campus_locations. The word 'public' is the only scoping hint, and it is left unexploited.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.