Retrieve your university class timetable by academic year and term; omit both to get the current semester's schedule.
查询本人课表。
year 为学年起始年（如 2025 表示 2025-2026 学年），term 为 1/2/3；不填则取当前学期。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| term | No | ||
| year | 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the query is scoped to the caller's own timetable ('本人'), a useful access-scope detail, but says nothing about rate limits, auth requirements, or data freshness beyond what annotations provide.
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?
Two tight lines: the purpose clause first, then the parameter semantics. No filler, no repetition of the schema or annotations.
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 both parameters are explained despite 0% schema coverage. The definition is nearly complete; only the individual term-value semantics remain slightly underspecified.
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 carries the burden, and it does so well: it defines year as the academic-year start (2025 = 2025-2026) and term as 1/2/3, plus the default-to-current-semester behavior. The only gap is that the meaning of the individual term values (e.g. what term 3 represents) is left implicit.
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 ('查询本人课表' – query one's own timetable), which is cleanly distinguishable from sibling resources like get_exams and get_grades. It does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings, so it stops short of a 5.
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 description gives an implied usage cue by explaining that omitting year/term falls back to the current semester, which tells the agent when defaults are acceptable. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_terms or get_exams.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.