EduBase MCP Server

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

The description aligns with annotations (destructiveHint=true is consistent with 'Remove'), but adds minimal context beyond the structured fields. It does not mention the idempotent nature of the operation (covered by annotations), error conditions (e.g., if permission doesn't exist), or side effects.

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 single-sentence description is perfectly concise and front-loaded with the action verb. There is no redundant or extraneous information; every word serves to clarify the tool's specific purpose.

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?

Given the presence of annotations covering behavioral traits and an output schema (mentioned in context signals), the description meets minimum viability but does not enrich the context with domain-specific details like permission level hierarchies or the specific meaning of 'grant' versus 'admin' permissions.

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, the input parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description does not add semantic details beyond the schema (e.g., example ID formats or permission hierarchy implications), warranting the baseline score.

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 clearly states the verb (Remove), resource (user permission), and scope (organization), distinguishing it from siblings like edubase_delete_organization (which deletes the entity itself) and edubase_delete_organization_members (which removes membership). However, it does not clarify the distinction between removing a specific permission level versus revoking all access.

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 (e.g., edubase_post_organization_permission for adding/updating), nor does it mention prerequisites such as requiring administrative privileges or the target user being an organization member.

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