EduBase MCP Server

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, the description adds domain context about hierarchy position but creates confusion by stating 'To get question details, use the question export function'. This implies the tool has limited data access without clarifying what it actually returns, and omits error behaviors or caching characteristics.

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 three-sentence structure efficiently delivers domain context and alternative tool guidance without excessive verbosity. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: defining the operation, providing hierarchy context, and redirecting for detailed exports, though the third sentence introduces ambiguity regarding the tool's actual return value.

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 and comprehensive parameter documentation, the description adequately covers domain context by explaining the question's role in the hierarchy. However, the uncertainty about whether this tool returns full question data versus basic existence checks, combined with no mention of pagination or rate limits, leaves gaps for a retrieval tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with the 'id' parameter fully described as an 'external unique question identifier', establishing a solid baseline. The description provides no additional parameter context, examples, or format specifications beyond what the schema already supplies, meeting but not exceeding expectations 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 uses 'Check' which conflicts with the tool name 'get_question', creating ambiguity about whether this retrieves full data or validates existence. While it provides useful domain context that questions are the 'lowest level in the EduBase hierarchy' and 'building blocks for Quiz sets', it fails to clearly distinguish this tool from siblings like edubase_get_question_id or edubase_get_questions.

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 explicitly redirects users to the 'question export function' for obtaining question details, providing a clear alternative for a specific use case. However, it fails to specify when to use this tool versus similar retrieval tools like edubase_get_questions (plural) or edubase_get_question_id, leaving gaps in sibling differentiation.

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