EduBase MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds value by specifying the scope ('owned and managed' organizations), clarifying this returns organizations where the user has ownership or management rights. However, it omits behavioral details like pagination limits or the interaction between search mode and page parameters (though this is documented in 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 description consists of a single, efficient sentence with zero redundancy. It front-loads the essential information (action and resource) and wastes no words, making it appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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 (which obviates the need to describe return values), 100% parameter schema coverage, and comprehensive annotations, the description is sufficiently complete for a list operation. The mention of 'owned and managed' provides necessary scope context, though explicitly contrasting with the singular `get_organization` variant would improve completeness.

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 itself fully documents the purpose of 'search', 'limit', and 'page' parameters, including the note that pagination is disabled in search mode. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score 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 action (List) and resource (organizations) with scope qualification (owned and managed). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like `edubase_get_organization` (singular) or `edubase_get_user_organizations`, which would help the agent select the correct tool for fetching a specific organization vs. listing all accessible ones.

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, nor does it mention prerequisites (like authentication requirements) or when not to use it. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and parameter schema.

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