EduBase MCP Server

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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond what annotations already provide. While annotations indicate this is a non-destructive write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) that is not idempotent (idempotentHint=false), the description doesn't explain what happens when toggling the 'active' flag, error conditions, or side effects.

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?

At two words, the description is severely underspecified rather than appropriately concise. It fails to front-load critical information about the scope of updates (limited to activation status per the schema) that would help an agent determine tool applicability.

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?

Despite being a relatively simple mutation tool with only two parameters, the description is inadequate. It fails to acknowledge that updates appear limited to the 'active' status flag (based on schema inspection), doesn't reference the required integration identifier format, and provides no context on return values or error states.

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 parameters 'integration' and 'active' are fully documented in the schema itself. The description mentions neither parameter, but since the schema already explains that 'active' enables/disables the integration, the description meets the baseline requirement without adding supplementary semantic information.

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 'Update integration' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name (edubase_patch_integration) without adding specificity. While it identifies the resource type, it fails to distinguish from siblings like edubase_post_integration or edubase_delete_integration, and doesn't clarify what aspects of an integration can be modified.

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 provided on when to use this patch operation versus creating a new integration (edubase_post_integration) or deleting one (edubase_delete_integration). No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned.

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