UAAR University MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying the resource ('hostel mess menu') and optional filtering, which aren't covered by annotations, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or auth needs.

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 that front-loads the core purpose ('Get hostel mess menu') and adds an optional detail ('Optionally filter by day') without waste. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's functionality.

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 (one optional parameter), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It could improve by specifying the format for 'day' or mentioning sibling tools, but it adequately supports the agent's needs.

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%, with one parameter ('day') documented only by title in the schema. The description compensates by explaining that filtering by day is optional, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it doesn't specify the format or allowed values for 'day' (e.g., weekdays, dates).

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 ('hostel mess menu') with an optional scope ('filter by day'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential siblings like 'get_hostel_fees' or 'get_hostel_rules', which are related but distinct tools.

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 'hostel mess menu' and optional filtering by day, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., no comparison to other hostel-related tools like 'get_hostel_fees'). The context is clear but not comprehensive for sibling differentiation.

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