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, open-world operation, but the description adds minimal context—it implies a write action ('Add') without detailing effects like persistence, validation, or error handling. It doesn't contradict annotations, but offers little beyond them, such as rate limits or auth needs, resulting in moderate value addition.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action, but it's overly terse—a single sentence that could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose. It avoids waste, but under-specification reduces its effectiveness, though not due to poor structure.

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 (8 parameters, write operation) and lack of schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address parameter meanings, usage context, or behavioral details, and while an output schema exists, the description doesn't hint at return values or success/failure outcomes, making it inadequate for the tool's needs.

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 8 required parameters, the description fails to add any semantic meaning beyond the schema. It doesn't explain what parameters like 'id', 'eligibility', or 'deadline' represent, their formats, or constraints, leaving the schema to carry the full burden without compensation.

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 states the action ('Add') and resource ('scholarship opportunity'), but it's vague about what 'Add' entails—does it create a new record, append to a list, or something else? It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'admin_add_book' or 'admin_add_course' beyond the resource type, lacking specificity about the administrative context or unique aspects of scholarship addition.

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), compare to siblings like 'list_scholarships' or 'get_scholarship_details', or specify scenarios for its use, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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