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 the qualifier 'detailed' to 'results', implying comprehensive output data, but does not elaborate on what constitutes a 'play', caching behavior, or rate limiting. It neither contradicts nor significantly enriches the annotation-provided behavioral profile.

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 with no redundant words. It front-loads the action ('Get') and immediately specifies the scope ('detailed results for a specific Quiz play'), making it easy to parse during tool selection.

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 (absolving the description from detailing return values), comprehensive annotations, and a single well-documented parameter, the description is nearly complete. The only gap is the lack of differentiation from sibling result-retrieval tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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 for the single 'play' parameter ('Quiz play identification string'), the schema carries the semantic load. The description aligns with the schema by mentioning 'Quiz play' but adds no supplementary context about ID format, validation rules, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema completeness.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed results for a specific Quiz play'), including the scoping qualifier 'specific' which aligns with the 'play' parameter. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'edubase_get_quiz_results_user', leaving ambiguity about which results endpoint to use when both user and play IDs are available.

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 (particularly 'edubase_get_quiz_results_user'). It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a play ID from a prior operation) or exclusion criteria.

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