EduBase MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint: false) and non-idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context not in annotations: exams are 'time-constrained' (mapping to open/close parameters), 'secured,' and represent 'assessment instances' distinct from their source quiz sets. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: sentence 1 states the action, sentence 2 establishes the hierarchy constraint, and sentence 3 describes behavioral characteristics. Information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 presence of an output schema (per context signals), 100% parameter coverage, and comprehensive annotations, the description successfully covers the conceptual model (hierarchy, prerequisites) without needing to document return values or individual parameter types.

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 is 3. The description implicitly maps to parameters by mentioning 'existing Quiz set' (quiz parameter) and 'time-constrained' (open/close), but does not add syntax details, format specifications, or examples beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with the specific action 'Create a new exam' and clarifies the unique constraint 'from an existing Quiz set.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like edubase_post_quiz by explaining that exams are hierarchy wrappers around quiz sets, establishing clear scope.

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 establishes a critical prerequisite ('MUST be created from existing Quiz sets') and explains the hierarchy relationship, implying this tool requires a pre-existing quiz. However, it does not explicitly name edubase_post_quiz as the alternative for creating the prerequisite quiz set, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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