EduBase MCP Server

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

Annotations fully cover safety properties (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint), but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic operation. It fails to disclose error handling (what happens if the identification string doesn't match?), lookup semantics (exact vs. fuzzy matching), or the format of the returned external identifier.

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 that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. There is no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration; every word serves a functional role in describing the input-output relationship.

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 complete annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's basic contract. However, for a mapping/lookup tool, it omits important context about the identifier domain (what kind of strings are valid inputs) that would help an agent predict successful usage.

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 baseline is 3. The description mirrors the schema's 'question identification string' phrase without adding clarifying examples, format specifications, or validation constraints. It neither adds value nor leaves gaps, meeting the minimum threshold for a well-documented single-parameter tool.

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 specific action (Get) and resource (external unique question identifier), distinguishing it from siblings like edubase_get_question (which likely returns full question objects). However, it lacks clarity on what constitutes a 'question identification string' (e.g., format or examples), 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like edubase_get_question or edubase_post_question_id. While the read-only nature is clear, there is no discussion of prerequisites, error conditions (e.g., string not found), or workflow context.

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