EduBase MCP Server

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

While annotations indicate this is a non-destructive write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) that is not idempotent, the description fails to disclose the increment functionality indicated in the schema (value parameter accepting '+prefix' syntax). It does not explain what happens on success, failure, or repeated invocations beyond the basic 'update' action.

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 consists of a single four-word sentence with no redundant or unnecessary text. However, it may be overly terse for a mutation operation with behavioral nuances (non-idempotent, increment support), leaving critical implementation details to be discovered only through the schema.

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 that this is a write operation with idempotentHint=false, an output schema, and special parameter behaviors (increment syntax), the description is insufficiently detailed. It fails to explain the metric recording behavior or provide context about the return value, relying entirely on structured fields for critical information.

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 itself, including the special increment pattern for the value field. The description offers no additional semantic context beyond implying the parameters exist through the 'update' action, earning the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 'Update a custom metric' clearly identifies the action (update) and resource (custom metric) with a specific verb. It unambiguously describes the core operation. However, it lacks scope clarification regarding whether this appends metric values or modifies existing records, and offers no differentiation from sibling tools (though none appear to be metric-related).

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 mention prerequisites such as metric existence or required permissions. There is no information about error conditions, appropriate use cases, or when not to use the tool.

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