EduBase MCP Server

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false), so the description does not need to repeat this. However, the description fails to elaborate on the idempotentHint: false annotation—specifically, it does not clarify whether calling this twice creates duplicate permissions, returns an error, or has other side effects. It also does not describe the output schema structure despite its existence.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action ('Create') and follows with the object and scope. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or unnecessary repetition of the tool name or annotations.

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?

Given the rich structured context (100% schema coverage, complete annotations, and existence of an output schema), the description provides sufficient context for a straightforward 3-parameter creation tool. However, it misses the opportunity to mention error conditions (e.g., if permission already exists) implied by idempotentHint: false, preventing a perfect score.

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 already fully documents all three parameters (event, user, permission) including the enum values. The description restates the parameter concepts ('user', 'event', 'permission') but adds no additional semantic context such as ID formats, validation rules, or examples beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema carries the full load.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and clearly identifies the resource ('permission') and scope ('for a user on an event'). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like edubase_post_class_permission by specifying 'event', though it does not explicitly differentiate from GET/DELETE variants or mention that this targets the event resource type specifically in text.

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 implies usage (use when you need to create a permission), but provides no explicit when/when-not guidance. It does not mention that edubase_get_event_permission should be used to check existing permissions first, or that edubase_delete_event_permission is the alternative for removal, leaving agents to infer this from the naming convention alone.

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