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), covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal context about filtering capabilities but doesn't disclose additional traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'exam schedule' entails (e.g., date ranges, formats). With annotations doing heavy lifting, the description adds some value but not rich behavioral details.

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) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place: 'Get exam schedule' states the action, and the second sentence adds essential filtering info without redundancy. No waste or unnecessary elaboration.

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 with 2 optional parameters), rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose and basic filtering, though it could add more on scope (e.g., time range) or prerequisites. For this context, it's mostly sufficient.

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 compensates by explaining that parameters are for filtering ('Filter by course code or exam type'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify format (e.g., exam type values like 'Midterm/Final' are mentioned but not exhaustive) or usage details, leaving gaps. Baseline would be lower without this, but it's adequate given 0% 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 tool's purpose: 'Get exam schedule' specifies the verb (get) and resource (exam schedule). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_class_schedule' or 'get_today_classes' by focusing on exams rather than regular classes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible exam-related tools (none exist in siblings), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 by mentioning filtering options ('Filter by course code or exam type'), suggesting when to use this tool for specific queries. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives (e.g., 'get_class_schedule' for non-exam schedules) or any exclusions. The guidance is present but not comprehensive.

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