EduBase MCP Server

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

While the description does not contradict annotations (correctly implying a read operation that aligns with readOnlyHint=true), it adds zero behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. It does not disclose return format, what defines a 'group', caching behavior, or any side effects not captured in the structured hints.

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 (3 words), which prevents verbosity, but the single sentence fails to earn its place by conveying minimal information. It is front-loaded but empty, representing under-specification rather than efficient information density.

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 existence of an output schema and simple single-parameter input, the description meets minimum structural requirements. However, it is incomplete regarding the domain model: 'group' is a specific entity type in educational systems (distinct from classes, organizations, or roles), and the description should clarify this relationship given the numerous sibling tools operating on similar user-associated resources.

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 'user' parameter is documented as 'user identification string'), the description meets the baseline expectation. However, the description itself adds no semantic information about the parameter (e.g., expected format, examples, or whether it accepts email vs ID) beyond what the schema already provides.

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 user's group.' is a tautology that restates the tool name (edubase_get_user_group) without adding specificity. It fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like edubase_get_user_classes, edubase_get_user_organizations, or edubase_get_user, leaving ambiguous what constitutes a 'group' in this educational context.

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 such as edubase_get_user_organizations or edubase_get_user_classes. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or workflow context to help an agent determine applicability.

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