UAAR University MCP Server

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

Annotations cover key behavioral traits (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world), so the description's burden is lower. It adds context by specifying 'latest' and 'Spring 2026', which hints at temporal scope, but doesn't disclose additional details like rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy 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?

Given the tool has annotations covering safety and behavior, an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), and it's a simple read operation with one parameter, the description is moderately complete. However, it lacks usage guidelines and deeper parameter context, which could aid agent decision-making.

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 description must compensate. It implies 'dept_id' is needed for a department-specific merit list, but doesn't explain format, valid values, or constraints. With one parameter and no schema descriptions, this provides minimal semantic value beyond the schema's structure.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('merit list') with specific context ('latest', 'for a department', 'Spring 2026'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential siblings like 'get_semester_result' or 'get_cgpa', which might also relate to academic performance data.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools such as 'get_semester_result' or 'get_cgpa', leaving usage context unclear.

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