EduBase MCP Server

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

The annotations comprehensively cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent), so the description does not need to repeat these traits. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context about return values, error states (e.g., invalid organization/user), or the boolean nature of the permission check.

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 consists of a single, efficient sentence with no redundant words or filler content. It immediately communicates the core function without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complete input schema annotations, presence of an output schema, and comprehensive MCP annotations covering behavioral traits, the description provides sufficient context for tool selection despite its brevity. However, it could improve by clarifying that it checks for a specific permission level rather than permission in general.

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 input parameters are fully documented in the schema itself (organization ID, user ID, and permission enum). The description adds no supplementary parameter guidance, meeting the baseline expectation for high-coverage schemas.

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 tool checks permission status for a user on an organization, using specific verb 'Check' and resource 'organization'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like edubase_get_organization (which retrieves the organization itself) and edubase_post_organization_permission (which modifies permissions). However, it lacks specificity about checking a specific permission level versus general permission status, preventing a perfect score.

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 such as edubase_get_organization (which may include permission data in its response) or the permission modification tools (post/delete). There are no explicit preconditions, error conditions, or workflow suggestions mentioned.

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