UAAR University MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide clear hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: false), indicating safe, read-only behavior. The description adds value by specifying the filtering capability ('Optionally filter by route name'), which isn't covered by annotations, enhancing context without contradiction.

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—two short sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately follow with parameter guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter), rich annotations covering safety and behavior, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete enough. It provides essential purpose and parameter info without overloading.

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 description carries the burden. It effectively explains the optional 'route_name' parameter for filtering, adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. With only one parameter, this is sufficient for a high score, though it could detail format or examples.

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 resource ('university bus routes'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_route_by_stop' or other transport-related tools, which would be needed for 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 implies usage context through 'Optionally filter by route name,' suggesting when to use the optional parameter. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_route_by_stop' or other filtering methods, leaving some ambiguity.

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