search_colleges
Find a campus id by school name (e.g. "Ohio State" → osu.edu). Required before searching addresses.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
Find a campus id by school name (e.g. "Ohio State" → osu.edu). Required before searching addresses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the prerequisite context (required before address searches), which is not in the annotations, and does not contradict them.
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 sentences, no fluff. The purpose and example are front-loaded, and the prerequisite note is concise and actionable.
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?
For a single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, input semantics, and usage context. It could mention output format (e.g., a single id or list), but that's a minor gap given the simplicity.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by clarifying that 'query' is a school name, with an example ('Ohio State' → osu.edu). This adds meaning beyond the bare string type.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('Find'), resource ('campus id'), and the input ('school name'), with a concrete example. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like search_properties and search_owners by focusing on campuses.
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?
It explicitly states a prerequisite ('Required before searching addresses'), giving clear context for when to use it. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but the prerequisite guidance is valuable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.