EduBase MCP Server

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

While annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description fails to explain the critical non-idempotent behavior (idempotentHint=false)—specifically whether duplicate calls error or create multiple entries. It also omits auth requirements and 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?

The single sentence is efficient and front-loaded with no redundant words. However, the extreme brevity contributes to under-specification, preventing a perfect score.

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 having an output schema and complete parameter documentation, the description is inadequate for an access control tool. It lacks essential context about the permission hierarchy (view < admin), error conditions, and idempotency behavior required for safe invocation.

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 are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no supplementary parameter context (e.g., expected format for 'user' IDs or behavior of the 'grant' permission level), meriting the baseline score.

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 states the specific action ('Create'), resource ('permission'), and scope ('for a user on a course'), distinguishing it from siblings like edubase_post_class_permission. However, it could better clarify the distinction from the read-only variant edubase_get_course_permission.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., edubase_delete_course_permission for revocation), prerequisites (such as requiring admin rights), or when not to use it (e.g., if the permission already exists).

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