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. The description adds the valuable qualifier 'latest valid' indicating filtering for non-expired links, but does not clarify what constitutes validity, expiration behavior, or whether retrieving a link affects its status.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero redundancy. Critical qualifiers ('latest valid') are front-loaded, and every word serves a distinct purpose.

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 (which handles return value documentation), the single-parameter input schema with full coverage, and comprehensive annotations, the description is sufficient. It could improve by clarifying the distinction from link generation tools.

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 ('user' described as 'user identification string'), the schema carries the full load. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score.

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 clearly states the specific action (Get) and resource (latest valid login link) with scope (for user). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling edubase_post_user_login, which likely generates new links rather than retrieving existing ones.

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 retrieval tool versus alternatives like edubase_post_user_login (which likely creates/generates links) or edubase_delete_user_login. No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned.

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