EduBase MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-destructive write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) that is not idempotent. The description adds the context that this creates a 'new' resource and specifies the 'AI' nature (aligning with the default 'type' parameter), but doesn't disclose error conditions, validation rules, or whether the summary overwrites existing ones.

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. However, it is minimal to the point of being underspecified for a write operation with multiple optional metadata parameters. It effectively front-loads the core action but lacks supporting 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 write operation with 6 parameters (including specific LLM tracking fields), the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the significance of the AI-specific parameters ('llm', 'model'), the HTML formatting capability mentioned in the schema, or the lack of output schema. The annotations provide safety context, but the description doesn't complete the behavioral picture.

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 all 6 parameters including the LLM metadata fields ('llm', 'model'). The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, but the high schema coverage meets the baseline expectation without requiring compensation from the description.

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 ('Submit') and resource ('AI exam summary'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'edubase_post_exam' (which creates the exam itself) by specifying the 'summary' sub-resource. However, it doesn't clarify what an exam summary is used for (e.g., student-facing, administrative) or its relationship to the exam entity.

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 tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., whether the exam must exist first), or when not to use it. Given the presence of many sibling 'post' tools, explicit guidance would help prevent confusion.

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