UAAR University MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide key behavioral hints (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world). The description adds minimal context by mentioning filtering capabilities, but doesn't disclose additional traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format details. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences that directly state the tool's function and filtering options without any fluff. It's front-loaded and every word serves a purpose, making it efficient for an agent 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 (simple read operation), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It could improve by clarifying sibling distinctions or parameter details, but it's sufficient for basic use.

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 filtering by 'course code or day of week', which adds some meaning to the two parameters, but doesn't specify format (e.g., day abbreviations), constraints, or interaction effects. This partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('class schedule'), and mentions filtering capabilities. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_today_classes' or 'get_exam_schedule', which also retrieve schedule-related information, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself from alternatives.

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 like 'get_today_classes' or 'get_exam_schedule'. It mentions filtering options but doesn't specify contexts or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on parameter names alone.

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