EduBase MCP Server

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

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint: true) by using the verb 'List' and implies the operation is non-destructive. It adds the scope qualifier 'all' to indicate no filtering is available, matching the single-parameter schema. However, it omits details about pagination limits, error handling for invalid exam IDs, or the specific user roles included in the response.

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 extremely concise at five words, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains no redundant phrasing. However, it borders on underspecification given the potential ambiguity of 'users' in an educational context; one additional clarifying clause would improve utility without sacrificing clarity.

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 covering safety profiles, the description adequately indicates the tool's basic function. However, for a tool with siblings handling similar resources (delete_exam_users, post_exam_users), the description should clarify whether this returns enrolled candidates, administrators, or all associated personnel.

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, the parameter 'exam' is already documented as an 'exam identification string'. The description implies this parameter by referencing 'an exam' but adds no additional semantic information such as format examples (UUID vs. slug), validation rules, or whether the exam must be active.

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 provides a clear verb ('List') and resource ('users on an exam'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'edubase_delete_exam_users' and 'edubase_get_exam_results_user' through verb choice and scope. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from similar read operations and doesn't clarify what constitutes a 'user' (e.g., candidates vs. proctors).

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'edubase_get_exam_results_user' (which retrieves results rather than user lists) or 'edubase_get_exam' (which retrieves exam metadata). No prerequisites, permissions, or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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