UAAR University MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation with a closed-world scope. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this, such as rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. However, it doesn't contradict the annotations, so it meets the lower bar set by their presence.

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. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simple input schema (one parameter), rich annotations covering safety and behavior, and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks details on return values (e.g., format of status data) and doesn't fully address the tool's role among siblings, leaving some contextual 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%, but the description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what's implied by the tool name. It doesn't explain the 'application_id' parameter's format, source, or constraints. With only one parameter and no schema descriptions, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate for the lack of schema 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'admission form status', specifying what information is included ('collected and missing fields'). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'check_admission_status' by focusing on form field details rather than overall application status, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all relevant siblings like 'preview_admission_form'.

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., needing an existing admission form), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'preview_admission_form' or 'check_admission_status', 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.