EduBase MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable scope context ('owned and managed') not present in annotations, indicating this returns personal/managed questions rather than all system questions. However, it omits behavioral details like pagination limits or whether results are cached.

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 single-sentence description is front-loaded with the action verb and contains no redundant or wasteful text. While appropriately brief given the rich annotations and schema, it is arguably too minimal—bordering on under-specification—when considering the large sibling toolset that requires disambiguation.

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 100% schema coverage, presence of an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description provides minimum viable context for invocation. However, it lacks completeness regarding sibling differentiation and the specific semantics of 'owned and managed' versus other visibility scopes, leaving gaps that could cause selection errors.

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 schema fully documents all three parameters (search, limit, page). The description adds no supplemental parameter semantics (e.g., search syntax details, maximum limits), warranting the baseline score of 3 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 a specific verb ('List') with clear resource ('Quiz questions') and scope ('owned and managed'), distinguishing it from destructive siblings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from 'edubase_get_quiz_questions' (which likely fetches questions for a specific quiz), potentially causing confusion about which list operation to use.

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 like 'edubase_get_question' (singular) or 'edubase_get_quiz_questions'. It also fails to clarify the interaction between search mode and pagination, despite the schema parameter hint that 'page' is 'not used in search mode!'.

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