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 confirms the read-only list operation but adds no significant behavioral context beyond annotations, such as pagination behavior, error handling for invalid users, or whether archived memberships are included.

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 no redundant words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action and scope, delivering maximum information density for a simple lookup tool.

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 tool's simplicity (single parameter), presence of an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It could optionally clarify error cases (e.g., user not found) or membership depth, but the current level is adequate for the complexity.

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 already documents the 'user' parameter as a 'user identification string'. The description mentions 'a user' but does not add format details (e.g., email vs. UUID) or semantics beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score for high-coverage schemas.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('organizations') with clear scope ('a user is member of'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'edubase_get_organizations' (general list) and 'edubase_delete_user_organizations' (mutation) through the 'List' action and user-specific 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 implies usage (retrieve memberships for a specific user) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over 'edubase_get_organizations' or how it relates to 'edubase_post_user_organizations'. It lacks 'when-not' or alternative recommendations.

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