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-destructive (destructiveHint=false), but the description adds no behavioral context beyond these hints. It fails to explain what happens during the transfer, whether it triggers notifications, if it's reversible, or what the output schema represents.

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 four-word description is certainly not verbose, but it is inappropriately terse for a tool with an output schema and behavioral complexity implied by the 'transfer' operation. It lacks front-loaded value beyond the label, though it contains no filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite having an output schema (excusing return value documentation), the description inadequately covers the tool's semantics. It omits what 'transfer' entails, how it relates to the Edubase learning management workflow, and fails to leverage the presence of annotations to focus on domain-specific context that structured fields cannot provide.

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 ('SCORM identification string' and 'user identification string'), the baseline score applies. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance (format examples, where to obtain IDs, validation rules), but the schema adequately documents the two required string parameters.

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 'Transfer SCORM to user' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name (edubase_post_scorm_transfer). While it identifies the verb (transfer), resource (SCORM), and target (user), it fails to distinguish from numerous sibling transfer tools (class_transfer, course_transfer, exam_transfer, etc.) or explain what 'transfer' means in this educational context (enrollment? assignment? ownership change?).

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. With many sibling 'transfer' operations available for different resource types (courses, classes, quizzes, etc.), the description offers no criteria for selecting this specific tool or prerequisites for invocation.

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