EduBase MCP Server

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the word 'check', which vaguely implies existence validation but provides no details on failure modes, authentication requirements, or what constitutes a valid 'integration identification string' beyond the schema.

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 three-word description is maximally brief and front-loaded, but conciseness requires information density. The sentence earns minimal utility—it communicates barely more than the tool name itself. No structural issues, but under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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?

Despite having an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description remains insufficient for sibling differentiation in a complex API surface. It fails to clarify that this retrieves a specific integration by identifier versus listing all integrations, a critical distinction given the presence of both 'get_integration' and 'get_integrations' endpoints.

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 for the single 'integration' parameter ('integration identification string'), the baseline score applies. The description adds no parameter-specific context (e.g., expected format, examples, or whether this is a UUID vs slug), but the schema carries the load adequately.

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 'Get/check integration' restates the tool name with minimal expansion. While it identifies the resource (integration), it fails to distinguish this single-item retrieval from the sibling 'edubase_get_integrations' (plural/list endpoint). The dual verbs 'Get/check' create ambiguity about whether this validates existence or retrieves data.

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 alternatives like 'edubase_get_integrations' or 'edubase_get_integration_keys'. No mention of prerequisites, error conditions (e.g., if integration doesn't exist), or relationship to the POST/DELETE/PATCH integration siblings.

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