EduBase MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to cover safety. It adds valuable behavioral context with '(the latest)', indicating that only the most recent certificate is returned if multiple exist. However, it does not describe what happens when no certificate exists (error vs. null) or the format of the returned certificate details.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every element serves a purpose: the action (Get), the behavioral qualifier ((the latest)), the resource (certificate details), and the required parameters (specific exam and user).

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 and annotations covering safety/idempotency, the description adequately covers the basic use case. However, for a certificate lookup tool, it should ideally mention error handling (e.g., 'returns 404 if no certificate exists') or explicitly contrast with the download endpoint to prevent incorrect tool selection.

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 ('exam identification string', 'user identification string'), the schema already documents the parameters adequately. The description references these parameters implicitly ('specific exam and user') but does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline 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 clearly states the verb (Get), resource (certificate details), and scope (specific exam and user). It distinguishes itself from siblings like edubase_get_exam_results_user by specifying 'certificate' rather than 'results', and from edubase_get_exam_users by requiring both exam and user parameters. However, it does not explicitly contrast with edubase_post_exam_certificates_user_download (which likely downloads the file vs. returning details).

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_post_exam_certificates_user_download (download vs. metadata retrieval) or edubase_get_exam_results_user. It also does not mention prerequisites, such as whether the user must have completed the exam or if certificates must be enabled for the exam.

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