UAAR University MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent operations, which the description doesn't contradict. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond this—e.g., it doesn't mention if it returns real-time data, historical info, or requires authentication. With annotations covering safety, the description provides limited extra value, earning a baseline score.

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 ('Get hostel fee structure') that front-loads the purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness. Every word earns its place, but it borders on under-specification.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, annotations provide safety info, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on what 'fee structure' includes (e.g., costs, deadlines, payment methods) and doesn't clarify scope compared to siblings. For a read-only tool, it's passable but has clear gaps in contextual richness.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, but that's acceptable here. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema fully handles the lack of parameters, and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 'Get hostel fee structure' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('hostel fee structure'), but it's vague about what 'fee structure' entails (e.g., rates, policies, breakdowns). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_fee_structure' (which might be general fees) or 'check_hostel_availability' (related but different purpose), leaving ambiguity in scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for current students, prospective ones, or administrators, or how it differs from 'get_fee_structure' or other fee-related tools. The description lacks context, prerequisites, or exclusions, offering minimal help for selection.

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