campus-edu-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_empty_classrooms

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find empty classrooms for a given teaching week and weekday, with optional campus and period filters. Read-only: it checks availability and does not submit a booking request.

Instructions

查询某教学周某天的空闲教室（只读，不会提交借用申请）。

    week 为教学周（1-30），weekday 为 1=周一 … 7=周日；periods 为必须全部空闲的节次编码
    （如 ["0102","0304"]，可选值见返回的 periods）；campus 为校区编号；
    year/term 不填则用教务系统默认学期。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`term`	No
`week`	Yes
`year`	No
`limit`	No
`campus`	No
`periods`	No
`weekday`	Yes
`min_capacity`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the burden is lighter, yet the description still adds real behavior: it will not create a borrowing request, and omitting year/term silently falls back to the academic system's default semester. No auth or rate-limit context is given.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the parameter glosses are dense and non-repetitive. The parenthetical read-only note duplicates the annotation, and the indented multi-line layout is slightly loose, but nothing is wasteful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

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 explanation (the description rightly points to the returned periods for valid codes). It covers all required params and the main optional ones; only limit/min_capacity semantics are missing for an 8-parameter tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does for most parameters: week range 1-30, weekday 1-7 mapping, periods as all-must-be-free codes with an example, campus as a campus code, and year/term defaulting. It leaves 'limit' and 'min_capacity' entirely unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (query free classrooms for a given teaching week/day) with scope qualifiers, and the 'read-only, will not submit a borrowing request' clause immediately separates it from any booking sibling. An agent can tell what it returns without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Clearly frames when to use it: read-only lookup, not an application submission, with the year/term defaulting rule spelled out. It never names an alternative sibling (e.g. get_timetable) to route against, so it stops short of the explicit when-not/alternatives bar.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server