EduBase MCP Server

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

While annotations correctly declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. Critically, for a destructive operation, it fails to clarify whether 'remove' means unlinking questions from the quiz (keeping the questions in the system) or permanently deleting the question entities—a crucial distinction given the sibling tool 'edubase_delete_question'.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action verb and fits the complexity of the tool perfectly.

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 3-parameter destructive operation with no output schema, the description covers the basic operation but lacks completeness regarding the return value, error conditions (e.g., what happens if the question isn't in the group), and confirmation of the idempotent nature. Given the simple schema, this is adequate but minimal.

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 schema fully documents all three parameters including the comma-separated format for 'questions' and the optional nature of 'group'. The description does not need to add significant parameter semantics, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 specific action (Remove) and target resource (question(s) from a Quiz set). It distinguishes from 'edubase_delete_quiz' by specifying the operation targets contents within the quiz rather than the quiz itself. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from 'edubase_delete_question', leaving ambiguity about whether this deletes the underlying question entity or merely removes its association with the quiz.

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 phrase 'or one of its question group' provides implicit guidance on when to use the optional 'group' parameter. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus 'edubase_delete_question' or 'edubase_post_quiz_questions', nor are there prerequisites stated (e.g., requiring the quiz to exist).

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