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 about what fields can be updated (only 'active' per schema), side effects, or the non-idempotent nature declared in annotations (idempotentHint=false).

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 extremely brief (2 words), which prevents verbosity, but it is too minimal to be considered well-structured or front-loaded with useful information. It wastes the opportunity to convey critical usage context.

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 user management operation with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to clarify the limited scope of updates possible (only the 'active' field) or how this relates to the broader user lifecycle management evident in the sibling tools.

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 schema adequately documents both parameters ('user identification string' and 'enable or disable user'). The description adds no parameter semantics, meeting the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 user' is a tautology that restates the tool name and title without distinguishing from siblings like edubase_post_user (create) or edubase_delete_user. It fails to clarify that this tool specifically performs partial updates (PATCH) rather than full replacements.

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 the POST (create) or DELETE alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, permissions, or that this is intended for toggling user status based on the schema.

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