EduBase MCP Server

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

Annotations comprehensively cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description confirms the read-only nature with 'Check' but adds no further behavioral context like error handling for invalid users/exams or return value semantics.

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, efficient sentence with no redundant words. Every word earns its place by stating the exact operation and scope without filler.

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 comprehensive annotations, the description is sufficient for tool selection. It could be improved by mentioning the boolean nature of the check result, but the structured context covers the essential gaps.

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 clear descriptions for 'exam', 'user', and the permission enum. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, examples, or format details beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score.

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 clear resource scope ('user has permission on an exam'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like edubase_get_exam (retrieves exam content) and edubase_post_exam_permission (creates permissions) by specifying this is a verification/read operation.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention typical use cases (e.g., 'verify access before modifying') or explain when to use edubase_get_exam instead for broader exam data.

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