EduBase MCP Server

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

While annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds no behavioral context beyond this. Critically, it fails to explain the idempotentHint=false annotation (meaning repeated calls may have cumulative effects), which is vital for a PATCH operation.

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?

Though only two words, this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The sentence fails to earn its place by providing no information beyond the tool name itself.

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 mutation tool with numerous siblings (including GET, POST, DELETE variants), the description inadequately explains the update scope, return values, or error conditions. No output schema exists to compensate for these omissions.

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 for the single 'organization' parameter, the schema carries the full burden. The description adds no supplementary context about the identification string format or examples, warranting the baseline score for complete schema coverage.

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 organization.' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name 'edubase_patch_organization' without clarifying the PATCH semantics (partial update) or distinguishing from sibling 'edubase_post_organization'. It fails to specify what aspects of an organization can be updated.

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 PATCH vs the sibling POST endpoint, when partial updates are preferred over full updates, or prerequisites for invocation. The agent has no signal to select this tool over alternatives.

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