EduBase MCP Server

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, establishing the write-but-safe nature. The description adds the critical context that storage is 'temporary,' implying expiration, but fails to elaborate on duration, link lifecycle, or the non-idempotent behavior (annotations show idempotentHint=false) that each call generates distinct links.

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 description is front-loaded with the action verb and contains no redundant words. However, it prioritizes brevity over completeness, leaving room for additional sentences covering usage context without becoming verbose.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description correctly omits return value details. However, for a file upload workflow tool, it inadequately explains the conceptual model—specifically what 'temporary' means (duration, auto-deletion), how the returned link is consumed, and the relationship between link generation and actual file upload.

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 input parameters are fully documented in the structured schema. The description adds no semantic color beyond the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain that 'type' determines validation rules or acceptable formats for the subsequent upload), meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 clearly states the core action (Generate upload link) and resource (temporary file storage), providing specific verb-resource pairing. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'edubase_filebin' (likely retrieval) or 'edubase_delete_filebin_upload' in the text itself, relying on naming conventions rather than descriptive guidance.

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, nor does it explain the workflow (e.g., that this must be called before uploading files to obtain the endpoint). The 'force' parameter's behavioral implications (invalidating previous links) are left entirely to the schema without conceptual explanation.

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