EduBase MCP Server

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

The description is consistent with annotations (read-only, non-destructive) but adds minimal behavioral context beyond them. It specifies 'all members' suggesting comprehensive listing, but omits details about pagination, permission errors, or whether results include nested sub-organizations.

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 single-sentence description is extremely concise and front-loaded with the verb. While efficient, it borders on under-specification given the lack of usage context, though it avoids redundancy with structured metadata.

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, comprehensive annotations, and a single parameter with full schema coverage, the description provides minimally sufficient context. However, it lacks guidance on edge cases (empty organizations, access denied) that would complete the agent's understanding.

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 ('organization identification string'), the baseline is 3. The description references 'organization' but does not augment the schema with format details, examples, or semantics (e.g., whether it accepts UUIDs, slugs, or names).

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 clear verb ('List') with specific resource ('members') and scope ('in an organization'), matching the tool name. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'get_class_members' via the organization scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate from reverse-lookup tools like 'get_user_organizations'.

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., 'get_user_organizations' for finding a user's affiliations instead of an organization's roster), nor does it mention prerequisites like organization visibility permissions.

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