EduBase MCP Server

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

The description states 'If a valid link with the same settings exists, it will be returned instead of creating a new one,' which describes idempotent behavior. However, the annotations explicitly declare idempotentHint: false. This direct contradiction creates confusion about whether multiple identical calls are truly safe and 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 consists of exactly two high-value sentences. The first declares the action; the second explains the critical reuse behavior. No filler text, front-loaded information, and zero redundancy given the schema richness.

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 an output schema (per context signals) and comprehensive parameter documentation, the description appropriately focuses on the high-level behavior (generation vs. reuse). It covers the essential behavioral quirk (idempotency logic) despite the annotation contradiction, though it could note the mutual exclusivity of 'exam' and 'redirect' parameters.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description references 'same settings' which loosely alludes to parameters, but adds no specific semantic details (e.g., format requirements, validation rules) beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score applies.

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 specific action ('Generate login link') and resource type. The second sentence further clarifies the 'get-or-create' semantics, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like edubase_get_user_login (retrieval only) and edubase_delete_user_login.

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 implies usage patterns through the idempotency logic (returns existing valid links), suggesting when to use this versus retrieval. However, it lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites (e.g., user must exist) or explicit comparison to edubase_get_user_login for read-only scenarios.

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