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. The description adds the word 'check' which might imply existence verification, but does not clarify what 'checking' entails (boolean return vs. full object vs. error on missing), what happens if the exam ID is invalid, or any rate limiting.

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?

While extremely brief (3 words), it is underspecified rather than appropriately concise. Given the large sibling toolset (80+ tools) and ambiguity of 'check', the description wastes no words but fails to front-load critical scoping information (single exam retrieval by ID).

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?

With output schema present, return values need not be described. However, the description omits critical context: that this retrieves a single specific exam versus listing (edubase_get_exams), and what differentiates 'getting' from 'checking'. For a tool with 100% schema coverage but many siblings, this is incomplete.

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 the 'exam' parameter documented as 'exam identification string'. The description adds no parameter semantics, but the baseline score of 3 applies since the schema is fully self-documenting.

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 states the action ('Get/check') and resource ('exam'), but remains vague about the 'check' semantics and fails to distinguish from sibling 'edubase_get_exams' (plural list) or sub-resource getters like 'edubase_get_exam_users'. It meets minimum viability but lacks specificity regarding scope (single entity retrieval vs. list).

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 guidance provided on when to use this tool versus the plural 'edubase_get_exams' or other exam-related endpoints. No prerequisites or error conditions mentioned.

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