EduBase MCP Server

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

The description adds valuable context that this affects 'next requests,' indicating a session state change that persists beyond the single call—information not present in annotations. However, it omits critical behavioral details like session duration, audit logging implications, or whether the assumption affects all subsequent calls globally or only specific request types.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with no filler. However, it may be too terse for a security-sensitive authentication tool, omitting essential safety and operational context that would help an agent use this correctly.

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 an impersonation/authentication tool that changes execution context for subsequent operations, the description is dangerously incomplete. It fails to mention the security implications, required privileges, how to terminate the assumption (via the delete sibling), or the scope of affected subsequent requests, despite having an output schema available.

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 parameter semantics are adequately handled by the schema itself. The description adds no additional context about when the optional 'password' parameter is required versus the 'user' identification, or what constitutes a 'user secret,' meriting the baseline score.

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 states the core action ('Assume user') and mentions the mechanism ('assume token'), but uses technical jargon without clarifying that this is an impersonation/sudo operation. It fails to distinguish from sibling 'edubase_delete_user_assume' which terminates the session, leaving ambiguity about whether this creates, updates, or uses an existing assumption.

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 versus ending an assumption (edubase_delete_user_assume), nor on prerequisites such as administrative privileges typically required for user impersonation. The agent must infer usage from the method name alone.

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