EduBase MCP Server

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly, idempotent), but the description fails to clarify what 'check' means—whether it validates existence, returns different status codes, or is simply synonymous with 'get'. No behavioral context is added beyond the 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?

At three words, the description is brief but under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It lacks the necessary information density to be useful, though it contains no redundant text.

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 sibling ecosystem (including edubase_get_user_me which the schema references as preferred for 'me'), the description should clarify relationships and scope. It does not leverage the existing output schema to justify its brevity regarding return values.

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 and only one parameter, the baseline score applies. The parameter description in the schema adequately explains the 'user' string and special 'me' value, so the main description does not need to compensate.

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 'Get/check user' is tautological (restates the tool name) and ambiguous regarding the 'check' functionality. It fails to distinguish from siblings like edubase_get_user_me (current user) or edubase_get_users (list), leaving the scope unclear.

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. While the parameter schema mentions preferring /user:me for current user lookups, this critical usage context is absent from the main description text.

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