EduBase MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the filtering behavior ('managed, non-generated' users) not captured in annotations. However, it omits details about pagination behavior, result ordering, or the relationship between search mode and page parameter (though the schema notes this).

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 maximally concise at four words. Every word serves a purpose: 'List' declares the action, 'managed' and 'non-generated' define the specific user subset. There is no redundancy or waste given the rich structured metadata (annotations and schema) handles behavioral and parameter details.

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 and 100% parameter coverage, the description adequately identifies the resource scope. However, for a complex domain with many user-related siblings, it leaves gaps in explaining the domain-specific filtering ('managed/non-generated') and lacks cross-tool navigation guidance that would help an agent select this over edubase_get_user_search.

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 fully documents the search, limit, and page parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, relying entirely on the schema. This meets the baseline expectation 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 provides a clear verb ('List') and resource ('users') with qualifying scope ('managed, non-generated'). It hints at sibling differentiation by specifying a subset of users, though it could clarify what 'managed' and 'non-generated' mean in the Edubase domain to fully distinguish from tools like edubase_get_user_search.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like edubase_get_user (singular), edubase_get_user_search, or edubase_get_user_me. Given the existence of multiple user-retrieval siblings, the lack of explicit selection criteria forces the agent to guess based on parameter schemas alone.

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