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 'Get,' confirming it's a safe read operation. It adds minimal context about organizational scoping ('configured in organization'), but fails to clarify what 'check' entails, what data is returned (though output schema exists), or whether it verifies webhook health/status.

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 with no redundant words. However, the 'Get/check' construction is slightly awkward and creates ambiguity about whether this is a retrieval or validation operation, preventing a perfect score.

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 tool's simplicity (two required string parameters, no nesting) and the presence of an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. It could be improved by explicitly stating it retrieves webhook configuration details, but it meets the minimum viable threshold for this complexity level.

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 schema already defines 'organization' and 'webhook' as identification strings. The description mentions these concepts but adds no semantic value regarding format (e.g., UUID vs slug), constraints, or examples beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score.

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 identifies the core action ('Get/check') and resource ('webhook configured in organization'), distinguishing it from destructive siblings like edubase_delete_organization_webhook. However, 'check' is ambiguous—it could imply validation/testing rather than retrieval—and it doesn't clarify whether this retrieves details or merely verifies existence.

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_post_organization_webhook (create), edubase_patch_organization_webhook (update), or edubase_post_organization_webhook_trigger (test). It doesn't indicate prerequisites like needing the webhook ID beforehand.

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