EduBase MCP Server

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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context about the searchable fields (email, username, code) that annotations don't cover, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like exact vs. partial matching, result limits, or case sensitivity.

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 wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action and target, delivering maximum 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?

For a single-parameter lookup tool with an output schema present, the description adequately covers the core functionality. However, it lacks details about return behavior (single vs. multiple results), matching logic (exact/partial), or error conditions that would help the agent handle responses correctly.

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?

While the schema describes the 'query' parameter as a generic 'query string', the description clarifies that this string should be an email, username, or code. This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the 100% schema coverage, helping the agent construct valid inputs.

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 verb (lookup), resource (user), and specific search keys (email, username, code). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'edubase_get_user' (which likely retrieves by ID) or 'edubase_get_user_name'.

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 implied usage guidance by specifying the valid search inputs (email, username, or code), suggesting when to use this tool. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance contrasting it with the 100+ sibling tools, particularly other user retrieval methods.

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