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), non-destructive (destructiveHint: false), and open-world (openWorldHint: true). The description adds minimal context by implying admin-level access via the '[Admin]' prefix, but doesn't elaborate on behavioral traits like error conditions, validation rules, or what 'openWorldHint' means in practice (e.g., whether 'id' must be unique).

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 key action and resource, 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 (admin write operation with 5 required parameters), annotations cover basic safety (non-destructive, open-world), and an output schema exists (so return values needn't be described). However, the description lacks critical context: no parameter guidance, no usage distinctions from siblings, and minimal behavioral details beyond annotations, 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameter titles (e.g., 'Id', 'Title') provide no semantic details. The description adds no information about parameters—it doesn't explain what 'id' represents (e.g., unique identifier), 'date' format, 'category' options, or content constraints. With 5 required parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate.

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 ('a news item'), and the '[Admin]' prefix suggests administrative privileges. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'admin_add_event' or 'admin_add_book' 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., admin permissions), nor does it contrast with similar tools like 'get_latest_news' for reading news or other admin_add_* tools for different resources.

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