EduBase MCP Server

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

While annotations correctly declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description adds no behavioral context beyond these structured fields. It fails to disclose pagination behavior, error handling (e.g., invalid class ID), or rate limiting considerations that would help an agent understand operational constraints.

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 extremely concise at seven words with no redundant or wasted text. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it scannable, though this brevity comes at the cost of informational depth.

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 an output schema (covering return values) and fully documented single parameter, the description meets minimum viability for a list operation. However, clear gaps remain regarding scope boundaries (what constitutes an 'assignment' in this domain) and filtering capabilities.

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 'class' parameter is documented as 'class identification string' in the schema), the baseline score applies. The description itself adds no parameter semantics, examples, or format guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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 (List) and resource (assignments in a class), distinguishing it from siblings like edubase_get_class (which gets class metadata) and edubase_get_class_members (which gets users). However, it does not clarify the scope of 'assignments' (e.g., whether exams or quizzes are included) or temporal filtering (active vs. archived).

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, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing the class identifier beforehand. There are no exclusions or conditional usage notes provided.

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