EduBase MCP Server

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'check' nuance, suggesting verification capability, but does not clarify behavioral details like what happens if the tag doesn't exist or what data is returned (though output schema is present).

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 extremely brief ('Get/check tag.') with no wasted words. While underspecified, it is front-loaded and efficient, avoiding redundancy with the structured schema and annotations.

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 (not shown in detail but indicated) and complete input schema coverage, the description doesn't need to explain return values or parameter formats. However, it lacks context on the 'check' functionality and tag resource semantics, leaving minor gaps.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for its single 'tag' parameter ('tag identification string'). The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, but with complete schema coverage, it meets the baseline expectation.

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 the verb 'Get/check' and resource 'tag', indicating a read operation on a specific tag resource. However, it fails to differentiate from sibling 'edubase_get_tags' (plural) or clarify what 'check' means (verify existence vs. retrieve metadata). It is vague but not strictly tautological.

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_tags' (plural) for listing or 'edubase_get_tag_permission' for access control. No prerequisites, error conditions, or exclusions are mentioned.

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