UAAR University MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld operation. The description adds minimal context by implying admin-level access but doesn't elaborate on behavioral traits like authentication needs, error handling, or what 'Add' entails (e.g., creates new record). It doesn't contradict annotations, so it's adequate given the structured data.

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—a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 tool's complexity (7 required parameters, mutation operation) and the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on parameter meanings and usage context, which are important for a tool with many inputs and admin-level access.

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 0% schema description coverage and 7 required parameters, the description adds no semantic information beyond the tool name. It doesn't explain what parameters like 'id', 'total_copies', or 'location' mean, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 action ('Add') and resource ('library book'), and the '[Admin]' prefix suggests administrative privileges. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_library_books' or 'check_book_availability', which are read-only operations, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., admin access required), exclusions, or comparisons to other book-related tools like 'search_library_books' for queries, leaving usage context vague.

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