EduBase MCP Server

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

The description adds valuable context beyond the annotations by clarifying the upsert behavior (assigning new memberships or updating existing ones). However, it fails to explain why the tool is marked with `idempotentHint: false` despite describing an upsert-like operation, and omits mention of side effects like notifications (controlled by the `notify` parameter) or return values.

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 two efficient, front-loaded sentences with zero wasted words. The first states the primary action and the second immediately clarifies the update behavior for existing memberships, placing critical information early.

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 comprehensive input schema (100% coverage), present annotations declaring the non-read-only, non-destructive nature, and the lack of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for invocation. However, it could be improved by clarifying the non-idempotent nature and distinguishing usage from similar sibling endpoints.

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 score is appropriate. The description implies the primary parameters (user and organizations) through the action statement but does not add syntax details, validation rules, or examples beyond what is already documented in the schema properties.

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 uses a specific verb ('Assign') and clear resources ('user', 'organization(s)'). It distinguishes the tool's upsert behavior ('Updates membership if already member') from pure create operations, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool `edubase_post_organization_members` which likely offers an organization-centric approach to the same action.

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 implied usage guidance by noting that it handles both new assignments and existing membership updates. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this user-centric endpoint versus the similar `edubase_post_organization_members` endpoint, or when to use `edubase_delete_user_organizations` for removals.

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