Fetch your own university grades by year and term, returning courses, credits, course type, and pass status; optionally include numeric scores and GPA.
查询本人成绩。
默认返回课程、学分、课程性质、是否通过；include_scores=true 时才返回分数和绩点。
year 与 term 都不填则返回全部学期（结果中 term 为 null）。返回的数据会进入模型上下文。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| term | No | ||
| year | No | ||
| include_scores | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value: the default field set (course, credits, nature, pass status), the conditional expansion via include_scores, and the all-semesters fallback with term=null. The note that returned data enters the model context is a useful operational caveat.
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?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the conditional field behavior and the unset-filter fallback. No filler or redundancy; structure is efficient though slightly dense.
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 the description covers filtering behavior and default vs. expanded fields adequately for a read-only query tool. An agent has enough to call it correctly, with only minor gaps in parameter format details.
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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: it fully explains include_scores=true behavior and the combined year/term default (both unset returns all terms). It stops short of giving expected formats or value ranges for year/term integers, so it isn't exhaustive.
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 ('查询本人成绩' – query one's own grades) with an explicit self-scope. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like get_exams, get_timetable, and get_terms, which cover exams, schedule, and term lists respectively.
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?
Usage is implied (fetch the caller's grades), and the description clarifies default vs. score-inclusive behavior, but it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any prerequisites. No explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance is given, leaving the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.