EduBase MCP Server

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

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) by using the verb 'Check'. However, it adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations—omitting details about the return format (boolean vs. object), error conditions for missing users/courses, or the idempotent nature of the check.

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 single-sentence description is efficient with no wasted words. However, it is borderline too terse for optimal agent decision-making; one additional sentence covering return value semantics or usage context would improve utility without sacrificing clarity.

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 simple 3-parameter structure, 100% schema coverage, existing output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks guidance on interpreting results or handling the six permission levels, leaving minor gaps in contextual completeness.

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 parameters (course, user, permission) are fully documented in the JSON schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, meeting 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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('course permission'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools targeting classes or events. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the corresponding modification tools (edubase_post_course_permission, edubase_delete_course_permission) or clarify whether it retrieves permission details or performs a boolean verification.

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 retrieving full course details, nor does it explain the permission hierarchy (e.g., whether 'admin' implies 'view'). No prerequisites or error handling scenarios are mentioned.

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