UAAR University MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide comprehensive behavioral hints (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world), so the description doesn't need to repeat these. It adds minimal value by specifying 'latest' news, implying recency, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond what annotations provide.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with comprehensive annotations and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It states what the tool does, though it lacks parameter explanations and usage context. The annotations cover safety and behavioral aspects, and the output schema handles return values, reducing the description's burden.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description mentions 'latest news' but doesn't explain what 'limit' or 'offset' parameters mean or how they affect results. This leaves parameters semantically undocumented, though the presence of an output schema slightly mitigates this gap.

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 'latest news and announcements', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'admin_add_news' or 'list_upcoming_events' that might also involve news-related operations, preventing 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. There's no mention of when this tool is appropriate versus 'admin_add_news' (for creating news) or 'list_upcoming_events' (which might include news-like content), leaving the agent without contextual usage instructions.

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