EduBase MCP Server

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

While annotations cover read-only/idempotent hints, the description adds critical behavioral context: the sensitive nature of returned data ('all answers given by the user'), display constraints ('not meant to be displayed'), and authorization requirements ('might require additional permissions'). Minor gap: doesn't mention data volume or privacy implications.

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?

Five sentences, zero waste: (1) purpose declaration, (2) usage qualifier, (3) data scope disclosure, (4) display constraint, (5) permission warning. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter schema (100% coverage), presence of output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage constraints, permissions, and data sensitivity without needing to describe return values (handled by output schema).

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'), the baseline is met. The description references 'a specific exam' aligning with the parameter, but does not add syntax details, format examples, or semantic clarification beyond the schema's definition.

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 specific action (Get raw results) and resource (specific exam), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'edubase_get_exam_results_user' by emphasizing 'raw' results and 'very detailed results' including 'all answers given by the user'.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('Only use this if very detailed results are needed!'), when not to use ('It is not meant to be displayed to the user'), and prerequisites ('This might require additional permissions!'). Clear constraints guide agent selection appropriately.

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