EduBase MCP Server

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

While consistent with annotations (destructiveHint=true implies the removal is permanent), the description adds no behavioral context beyond what the name and annotations provide. It does not clarify what 'branding' encompasses (logos, colors, themes), whether the exam reverts to default branding, or error conditions if the exam lacks custom branding.

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?

The description is extremely concise at five words with no wasted language. However, given the destructive nature of the operation, it is too minimal to provide necessary context without relying entirely on the annotations and schema.

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 destructive operation, the description covers the basic intent but leaves gaps regarding the operation's effects (e.g., return value confirmation, side effects on exam appearance). Without an output schema, the description should ideally indicate what success looks like or whether the operation is idempotent (though annotations cover the latter).

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 100% schema description coverage ('exam identification string'), the schema adequately documents the single parameter. The description implies the 'exam' parameter refers to the target exam but adds no additional semantic details (e.g., format expectations, examples) beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'Remove' with a clear resource 'branding from an exam'. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like edubase_delete_exam (which deletes the entire exam) and edubase_delete_exam_tag/permission/users by specifying the exact attribute being targeted.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like edubase_post_exam_branding (to update/set branding) or edubase_get_exam_branding (to check current branding). It lacks prerequisites, such as whether the exam must exist or if branding must be present before removal.

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