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, establishing the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., whether results include multiple attempts, time spent, or partial credit) beyond what the output schema likely provides. No contradictions with annotations.

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 is front-loaded and contains no filler. Given the rich structured metadata (complete annotations, full schema coverage, output schema present), this brevity is appropriate, though slightly more context on the results payload could justify the tool's existence versus alternatives.

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?

For a straightforward read operation with two well-documented parameters and existing output schema, the description is sufficient. The presence of annotations covering safety and idempotency reduces the burden on the description text, though explicit differentiation from 'play' results would improve completeness.

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 set identification string', 'user identification string'), the schema fully documents parameter semantics. The description adds no additional parameter guidance (e.g., format expectations for IDs), meeting the baseline 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 states the verb (Get), resource (user results), and scope (specific Quiz set) clearly. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'edubase_get_quiz_results_play' by specifying 'user' results, but does not explicitly clarify the difference between these aggregation methods or when to prefer one over the other.

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?

No explicit guidance provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'edubase_get_quiz_results_play' (which likely retrieves session-level results) or 'edubase_get_exam_results_user'. There are no prerequisites, filters, or contextual triggers mentioned.

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