EduBase MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate destructive=true and idempotent=true, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond this. It fails to disclose what exactly gets destroyed (configuration history vs. just future triggers), whether the operation is reversible, or that retries are safe due to idempotency.

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?

Extremely concise at three words. No redundant or wasted text. However, the single sentence is arguably too brief for a destructive operation, though it efficiently conveys the core action without structural issues.

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 destructive operation with no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks explanation of side effects (e.g., immediate termination of webhook deliveries), confirmation of whether the operation is permanent, or reference to the idempotent nature declared in annotations.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage with clear parameter descriptions ('organization identification string', 'webhook identification string'). The tool description itself does not mention parameters, but since schema coverage exceeds 80%, the baseline score applies.

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?

Uses specific verb 'Remove' and resource 'organizational webhook' clearly indicating the action and target. However, it fails to distinguish from sibling tools like edubase_delete_organization (which deletes the entire organization) or differentiate from edubase_patch_organization_webhook.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as edubase_patch_organization_webhook (to disable/modify) or edubase_get_organization_webhook (to verify existence). No prerequisites or warnings about irreversibility are mentioned despite the destructive nature.

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