EduBase MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, establishing the safety profile. The description confirms the 'check' behavior but adds no further context about return value semantics, error conditions (e.g., invalid event IDs), or permission hierarchy implications beyond what the structured fields provide.

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 consists of a single, efficient sentence with no redundant or wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core action and resource, suitable for a tool with simple, well-defined semantics.

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 tool has 100% schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema exists, the description meets minimum viability but remains sparse. It does not clarify the permission hierarchy (e.g., whether 'admin' implies 'view') or explain that the output schema likely contains a boolean or status result.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (event, user, permission) fully documented in the input schema including the permission enum values. The description adds no supplementary parameter guidance, earning the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 (check) and resource (event permission) with specific scope (user). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like `edubase_get_event_tag` or distinguish this read operation from `edubase_post_event_permission` in the text itself, relying on the tool name for differentiation.

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 specify prerequisites (e.g., whether the user/event must exist first) or what to do based on the check result. It lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' statements.

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