EduBase MCP Server

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

The description is consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true) and adds the context that this applies to 'learning material,' but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like the boolean nature of the check or caching behavior beyond what the output schema and annotations 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 is perfectly front-loaded with the action verb, contains zero redundancy, and every word serves to clarify scope. No wasted language.

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 permission check with 100% schema coverage, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema present, the description provides sufficient context. No additional explanation of return values or complex workflows is necessary.

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 schema adequately documents all three parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics (e.g., format of identification strings), so it meets the baseline expectation where structured data carries the burden.

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 provides a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('permission on a SCORM learning material'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like edubase_post_scorm_permission or edubase_get_scorm_tags by implying a read-only verification operation.

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?

While the verb 'Check' implies read-only verification, the description lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus edubase_post_scorm_permission or what to do with the result. Usage is implied by the naming convention but not stated.

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