EduBase MCP Server

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

The annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no further behavioral context—such as return value format (boolean vs. object), error handling when the quiz/user does not exist, or permission inheritance rules—beyond what the name and annotations already provide.

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 appropriately brief and front-loaded with the core action. No extraneous words are present. However, it borders on tautology with the tool name, and one additional sentence describing the return value could improve utility without sacrificing conciseness.

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 rich annotations and complete input schema, the description covers the primary purpose adequately. However, it omits discussion of the return value semantics (despite the existence of an output schema) and does not clarify the permission hierarchy relationships (e.g., whether 'admin' implies 'grant').

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 (quiz, user, and permission parameters all documented), the description serves as a high-level summary only. It does not add syntax details, validation rules, or usage examples beyond the schema definitions, warranting the baseline score for fully documented 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 'Check if a user has permission on a quiz' provides a specific verb (Check) and resource (quiz permission). It distinguishes from siblings like edubase_get_class_permission by specifying the 'quiz' resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from edubase_post_quiz_permission or edubase_delete_quiz_permission beyond the implicit contrast in verbs.

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_quiz_permission for granting permissions. It lacks prerequisites (e.g., 'use this before attempting modifications') or conditions that would help an agent select this over sibling tools.

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