EduBase MCP Server

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

While annotations adequately cover safety traits (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action. It fails to disclose what constitutes a successful check, error conditions (e.g., if the integration doesn't exist), or the nature of the return value despite the tool being a read operation with an output 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 description is a single, efficient sentence that leads with the verb ('Check'). While appropriately brief, it borders on under-specification; however, for conciseness specifically, it avoids redundancy and wastes no words.

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 parameter structure (three required strings, one enum), 100% schema coverage, and existence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not need to exhaustively document return values, but it could have clarified the verification logic or parameter relationships (e.g., that all three are mandatory identifiers).

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 all three parameters (integration, user, permission) and the enum fully documented in the schema, the baseline is established. The description contributes no additional semantics, constraints, or format details beyond what the structured schema already provides.

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 core action ('Check') and the specific resource ('permission on an integration'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'edubase_get_integration' (which retrieves the integration itself) and the 'post'/'delete' permission variants. However, it stops short of clarifying what 'check' means in terms of return value (boolean vs. permission object).

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 (e.g., when to verify permissions vs. modify them) or any prerequisites (such as requiring valid integration or user IDs). It relies entirely on the agent inferring usage from the tool name pattern.

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