UAAR University MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide strong behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: false). The description adds value by clarifying this is an eligibility assessment tool ('may be eligible for'), which implies probabilistic or rule-based matching rather than definitive results. 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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 annotations provide good behavioral coverage (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent) and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description is reasonably complete. However, it lacks parameter explanations and usage differentiation from siblings, which are minor gaps.

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 mentions 'based on criteria' but doesn't explain what the three parameters (cgpa, family_income, is_punjab_domicile) represent or how they affect eligibility. This leaves significant gaps in understanding parameter meaning.

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 tool's purpose: 'Check which scholarships a student may be eligible for based on criteria.' It specifies the verb ('check'), resource ('scholarships'), and scope ('student eligibility'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_scholarships' or 'get_scholarship_details'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_scholarships' (which might list all scholarships) or 'get_scholarship_details' (which might provide details about specific scholarships), leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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