EduBase MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description confirms the destructive nature through the verb 'Remove' but adds no additional behavioral context beyond the annotations—such as whether the user account itself is preserved, what happens to the user's content within the organizations, or the specific nature of the 'removal' (access revocation vs. record deletion). No contradictions with annotations are present.

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 maximally concise at four words with zero redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action verb 'Remove' and immediately identifies the target resource. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or unnecessary elaboration.

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 two simple parameters and good annotations, the description covers the basic action but lacks completeness regarding side effects (e.g., impact on user's classes or content within those organizations, whether the operation is reversible). Without an output schema, the description could note typical success/failure modes, though this is less critical for a DELETE-like 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 ('user identification string' and 'comma-separated list of organization identification strings'), the schema fully documents parameter semantics. The description references 'user' and 'organization(s)' which maps to the parameters but adds no additional semantic value such as format examples, ID syntax requirements, or constraints. This meets the baseline expectation 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 'Remove user from organization(s)' clearly states the specific action (remove) and scope (user from organizations). It aligns with the parameter structure (user + organizations) and distinguishes from siblings like edubase_delete_user (deletes the user entirely) and edubase_delete_organization (deletes the org itself). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from edubase_delete_organization_members, which likely operates from the organization perspective rather than the user perspective.

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_delete_organization_members or edubase_post_user_organizations (for transferring users). It also omits prerequisites (e.g., whether the user must exist, what happens if they're not currently a member) despite the idempotentHint annotation suggesting safe retry behavior.

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