UAAR University MCP Server

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

The annotations already provide key behavioral hints: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description does not contradict these annotations, as 'Get' aligns with read-only and non-destructive operations. However, it adds minimal context beyond the annotations, such as not specifying if the tool requires authentication or details on rate limits, so it only partially enhances transparency.

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, clear sentence: 'Get cumulative GPA and academic standing for a student.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no unnecessary words or redundant information, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 parameter, no nested objects) and rich annotations (covering read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and closed-world aspects), the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks details on output format (e.g., numeric GPA, standing categories) and any edge cases, which could be important for an agent. With no output schema, the description should ideally provide more context on return values, but it does not.

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?

The input schema has one parameter, 'student_id', with 0% schema description coverage, meaning the schema provides no descriptive details. The description does not explicitly mention this parameter or its semantics, but since there is only one parameter and the tool's purpose is straightforward, the agent can infer that 'student_id' is needed to retrieve the GPA and academic standing. This compensates adequately for the lack of schema coverage, though not perfectly.

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: 'Get cumulative GPA and academic standing for a student.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and the resources ('cumulative GPA and academic standing'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'calculate_gpa', which might be a related but distinct operation, so it falls short of 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the sibling tool 'calculate_gpa'. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name and description alone.

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