UAAR University MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and closed-world, which covers key behavioral traits. The description doesn't add behavioral context beyond these annotations, but it also doesn't contradict them. Since annotations provide good coverage, the bar is lower, and the description doesn't need to repeat this information.

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 purpose, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential action and target.

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 minimally adequate. However, it lacks detail on what 'general university information' includes, which could be important for an agent to decide when to use this tool over more specific siblings. The annotations cover safety and behavior, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the vagueness in purpose.

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 discuss parameters, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is applied for tools with no parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for.

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 general university information' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('general university information'), but it's vague about what specific information is included. It doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get_important_links' or 'get_latest_news', which might also provide university information.

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. With many sibling tools that provide specific university information (e.g., 'get_fee_structure', 'get_library_hours'), there's no indication whether this tool aggregates such information or serves a different purpose.

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