EduBase MCP Server

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

The description aligns with annotations (destructiveHint: true matches 'Revoke'), confirming the irreversible nature of the action. However, it adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations—missing details on immediate effect (session termination), whether revocation is permanent, or security implications.

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 efficient at three words with no filler. The single sentence is front-loaded and direct. However, for a destructive operation, this brevity verges on underspecification rather than optimal conciseness.

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?

Inadequate for a destructive tool (destructiveHint: true) with no output schema. The description omits what happens to active sessions, whether the revocation is immediate, and what an 'assume token' represents in this system—critical context given the technical specificity of the operation.

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 'token' parameter is documented as 'assume token'), the description correctly relies on the schema. However, it fails to add usage context for the parameter, such as where to obtain the token or its expected format, earning the baseline score for high-coverage schemas.

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 (Revoke) and resource (assume token) that aligns with the tool name. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like edubase_delete_user (which deletes users) and edubase_post_user_assume (which likely creates the token), though it assumes familiarity with the 'assume token' concept.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name implies this ends an impersonation session started by edubase_post_user_assume, the description fails to state this explicitly or mention prerequisites like needing an active assume token.

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