EduBase MCP Server

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint), so the description's primary added value is the debugging use-case restriction. It does not elaborate on return format, rate limits, or authentication requirements, though the operation is simple enough that major behavioral risks are covered by annotations.

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?

Single sentence with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded ('Get the MCP server API URL') and the usage restriction follows parenthetically. Every word earns its place.

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?

Adequate for a simple meta-tool with no parameters. The description covers purpose and usage restrictions. While no output schema exists, the return value (the URL) is implied by the description's verb-object structure; explicit mention of return type would strengthen this to a 5.

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?

Zero parameters exist (schema coverage 100%), establishing baseline 4. The description correctly omits parameter discussion since none are required, aligning with the empty input schema.

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 ('MCP server API URL'), distinguishing it from the 100+ sibling tools focused on Edubase entities (classes, exams, users). However, it could clarify whether this returns the base URL for direct API calls or the MCP endpoint itself.

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?

Explicitly restricts usage to debugging scenarios with '(only use for debugging)', providing clear context that this is not for production business logic. Does not name alternatives, but this is acceptable as the tool serves a unique diagnostic purpose among siblings.

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