Search BrightKey
searchRead-only
Search across universities, schools, and answers. Returns {id, title, url} results; pass an id to fetch().
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
education-data
by co.brightkey
TDQS
B3/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only. Description adds return format and chaining hint, but no additional behavioral traits like pagination or ordering.
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with action. Each sentence adds distinct value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Minimal but covers key aspects: scope, return fields, chaining. Lacks details on result multiplicity or pagination, which could be important.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage for 'query' parameter. Description only vaguely implies it is a search term, no details on format or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States it searches across universities, schools, and answers, and specifies return fields. Clear purpose but could be more specific about scope given siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use search vs siblings like list_universities or compare. Implies a two-step process with fetch but no when-to-use context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: answering questions, comparing universities, calculating ROI, fetching details, getting profiles, listing universities, matching schools, and searching. No overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tool names use snake_case and follow a verb_noun or noun_noun pattern, making them predictable. The only minor deviation is 'fetch', which is a single verb, but it's still clear and common for such operations.
Tool Count5/5
8 tools is ideal for an education data server, covering core operations (search, list, profile, compare, ROI, etc.) without being overwhelming or insufficient.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers main user needs: answering questions, searching and listing universities/schools, getting profiles and comparisons, and ROI calculations. Missing features like school comparison or data updates, but overall solid for a read-only knowledge base.