UAAR University MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint: false) with open-world data (openWorldHint: true) and non-destructive (destructiveHint: false). The description adds the date format constraint, which is useful context not covered by annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like permission requirements, error handling, or response behavior, leaving gaps despite the annotations.

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 core purpose ('Add a new university event') and includes a critical detail (date format). There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the admin context from the action.

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 (5 required parameters, write operation) and the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the action and a key parameter constraint but lacks details on usage context, permissions, or error handling. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but more behavioral context would improve completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds semantic meaning for the 'date' parameter by specifying its format (YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS), which is valuable. However, it doesn't explain the other 4 parameters (id, title, location, description), leaving them undocumented. This partial compensation justifies a baseline score.

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 a new university event') and specifies the resource type ('university event'), which distinguishes it from other admin_add_* tools like admin_add_book or admin_add_course. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from admin_add_news or other event-related tools like list_upcoming_events, making it slightly less specific than a perfect score.

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 privileges implied by '[Admin]'), exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools like admin_add_news or list_upcoming_events. The date format note is helpful but doesn't address usage context.

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