UAAR University MCP Server

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

Annotations cover read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior, but the description adds value by implying this is for 'official transcripts,' suggesting formal or verified information. It doesn't contradict annotations, and while it doesn't detail rate limits or auth needs, it provides useful context beyond the structured hints.

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 that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly communicates the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly efficient and easy to understand.

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, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage context or behavioral nuances, leaving some gaps in completeness for an agent to fully leverage the tool.

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 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4 as per rules. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it efficiently states the tool's purpose without redundancy, adding no param info but not required to.

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 as 'Get information about requesting official transcripts,' which specifies the verb ('Get information about') and resource ('requesting official transcripts'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_transport_card_info' or 'get_scholarship_details' by focusing on transcripts, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar 'get_' tools beyond the topic.

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, context, or exclusions, such as whether it's for students, administrators, or general inquiries, or if it should be used before or after other transcript-related tools (though none are listed in siblings).

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