EduBase MCP Server

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds crucial behavioral context: 'Updates memberships if already member of the organization.' This disclosure of upsert semantics helps agents understand the tool won't fail if users are already members. It would benefit from mentioning error conditions (e.g., invalid organization ID) or notification side effects.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The first states the primary action, the second clarifies the update-on-conflict behavior. Every word earns its place; no redundancy with the title 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 6-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description adequately covers the core operation and conflict behavior. It lacks output description (success indicators, returned member objects), but no output schema exists to require this. Minor gap: doesn't mention the 'notify' parameter's email side effect.

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 fully documents all 6 parameters including enum values and defaults. The description implies the 'users' parameter through 'user(s)' but doesn't add syntax details (e.g., confirming comma-separated format) or semantic guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 clearly states the tool 'Assign user(s) to an organization' with a specific verb and resource. It adds the important qualifier that it 'Updates memberships if already member,' clarifying upsert behavior. However, it doesn't distinguish from the sibling tool 'edubase_post_organizations_members' (plural), which could confuse agents about which to use.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'edubase_delete_organization_members' or 'edubase_get_organization_members', nor does it clarify the difference from 'edubase_post_organizations_members'. The mention of update behavior implies idempotency considerations but doesn't explicitly guide selection.

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