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 'Check' operation but adds no further behavioral context such as error conditions (e.g., invalid video ID), response format details, or caching implications that would supplement the structured metadata.

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. It front-loads the action ('Check') and includes all necessary qualifying objects (user, permission, video) without filler text or tautology.

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 (handling return value documentation), 100% input schema coverage, and comprehensive annotations covering behavioral hints, the description provides sufficient context for a straightforward permission verification tool. It could improve by noting whether the check returns a boolean or throws an exception on missing permissions.

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, all three parameters (video, user, permission) are fully documented in the input schema including the permission enum values. The description provides no additional semantic context beyond the schema, meeting the baseline 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 ('Check') with clear resource ('permission on a video') and scope (user-specific). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like edubase_post_video_permission (grant/create) and edubase_get_class_permission (other entity type) through precise naming and action wording.

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 through the verb 'Check' (verification scenarios), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this read operation versus the POST (grant) or DELETE (revoke) variants, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing valid video/user IDs.

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