EduBase MCP Server

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

The description relies entirely on annotations for behavioral disclosure (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). It adds no context about side effects, what constitutes a valid 'group code', or the implications of the non-idempotent hint—critical information given that 'Update' operations are typically idempotent.

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 is extremely concise at only four words. While it wastes no space, it arguably errs toward under-specification rather than efficient information density. It meets the minimum threshold without redundant content.

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 presence of annotations and an output schema, the description meets baseline completeness by identifying the operation. However, it fails to address the non-idempotent nature of the operation (unusual for updates) or explain the output structure, leaving gaps in contextual understanding.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add semantic meaning beyond the schema (e.g., format examples for the group code or user identification string), but it does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 verb (Update) and resource (user's group), but provides minimal specificity about the operation's scope or how it differs from sibling tools like `edubase_get_user_group` or `edubase_post_user`. It does not clarify whether this replaces an existing group or adds an additional group.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites for invocation, or expected workflow. The existence of `edubase_get_user_group` suggests a read/write pair, but the description does not articulate this relationship or when to prefer one over the other.

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