UAAR University MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-destructive, open-world write operation (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false, openWorldHint: true). The description adds minimal context by implying admin-level access but doesn't detail behavioral traits like error handling, validation, or response format. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 with a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. There is no wasted verbiage, making it efficient, 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 complexity of a course creation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema details provided, the description is inadequate. It lacks essential context like parameter meanings, usage scenarios, and expected outcomes, making it incomplete for effective agent use.

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, the schema provides only titles and types for 5 parameters. The description offers no additional semantic information about what parameters like 'code' or 'department_id' represent, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 ('course'), and the '[Admin]' prefix suggests administrative privileges. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like admin_add_department or admin_add_book beyond the resource type, missing explicit 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 like search_courses or list_departments. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing admin rights or when course creation is appropriate, leaving usage unclear.

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