EduBase MCP Server

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. While annotations correctly indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description fails to explain the non-idempotent nature (idempotentHint=false is unusual for a PATCH operation), partial update semantics, or error conditions (e.g., webhook not found). No contradiction exists, but no value is added.

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 three words, the description is excessively brief to the point of underspecification. It is not 'concise' in the positive sense of information density, but rather incomplete. The single sentence fails to earn its place by providing actionable intelligence beyond the tool name.

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 operation affecting organizational webhooks, the description is inadequate. It omits context about the PATCH method's partial update nature, the specific 'active' toggle functionality visible in the schema, and the required identification strings. Given the idempotentHint=false annotation, the lack of explanation about side effects or repeated call behavior is a significant gap.

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 baseline score applies. The schema adequately documents all three parameters (organization, webhook, active). The description contributes no additional parameter semantics, but the schema carries the full burden successfully.

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 organizational webhook' is a tautology that restates the tool name and title. While it uses a specific verb ('Update'), it fails to distinguish this PATCH operation from sibling tools like edubase_post_organization_webhook (create) or edubase_get_organization_webhook (retrieve), and does not specify what aspects of the webhook 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (create vs. update), nor are prerequisites mentioned (e.g., requiring the webhook to exist, needing organization admin permissions). The description is silent on selection criteria.

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