EduBase MCP Server

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

While annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds no behavioral context beyond this. Critically, it fails to address the idempotentHint=false annotation—meaning the description does not clarify what happens if the permission already exists (duplicate creation vs. error vs. update), which is essential for correct agent invocation.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no redundant words. However, it is minimally informative rather than richly concise—every sentence earns its place, but there is only one sentence where more context could have been provided without sacrificing clarity.

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 and 100% input schema coverage, the description adequately covers the basic contract. However, it lacks completeness regarding behavioral edge cases (non-idempotency handling, validation errors) that would help an agent handle failure modes or determine if the operation is an upsert vs. strict create.

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 schema already documents all parameters (video ID, user ID, permission enum). The description adds no additional semantic context (e.g., permission hierarchy explanations or ID format details), meriting the baseline score for complete schema coverage.

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 (Create) and target resource (permission for a user on a video), distinguishing it from sibling get/delete operations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar 'post' siblings like edubase_post_video_tag, relying on the agent to infer the resource type from the description.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to update vs. create, or prerequisites like user/video existence). It lacks explicit when/when-not conditions or references to sibling tools like edubase_delete_video_permission for revocation scenarios.

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