UAAR University MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds that it's for adding to 'the database', which aligns with annotations but doesn't provide extra context like permission requirements, idempotency, or error handling. 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('[Admin] Add a new academic department'). There's no wasted text, making it appropriately concise for the tool's purpose.

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 has annotations and an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks details on parameters and usage context. For a mutation tool with 4 parameters and 0% schema coverage, more guidance on inputs and behavior would improve completeness, though the output schema reduces the need for return value explanation.

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 for 4 parameters, the description doesn't explain any parameters (id, name, faculty, description) beyond what the schema provides. It mentions 'new academic department' but gives no details on parameter meanings or constraints, failing to compensate for the low 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 action ('Add') and resource ('academic department'), and the '[Admin]' prefix suggests administrative privileges. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'admin_add_faculty' or 'admin_add_course' beyond the resource type.

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 minimal guidance—it implies this is for administrative use but doesn't specify when to use it versus alternatives like 'list_departments' or prerequisites for adding a department. No explicit when/when-not or alternative tools are mentioned.

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