UAAR University MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide clear behavioral hints (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description doesn't need to repeat safety information. However, it adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations cover—such as rate limits, authentication needs, or what specific profile fields are returned. With annotations doing most of the work, the description adds minimal value here.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get profile information'), making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes meaning, with zero waste or redundancy.

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 parameter), rich annotations covering safety and idempotency, and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It clearly states what the tool does, though it lacks usage guidelines and parameter details. For a simple read operation with good structural support, this is sufficient but not exceptional.

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%, but the description doesn't compensate by explaining the 'user_id' parameter's meaning, format, or sourcing. Since there's only one parameter and an output schema exists, the baseline is 3—adequate but with clear gaps. The description fails to add any semantic details beyond the schema's basic 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('profile information for a university member'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_cgpa' or 'get_transcript_request_info' by focusing on general profile data rather than specific academic or administrative information. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'search_faculty' that might also retrieve profile data, 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a user_id), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'search_faculty' or 'get_department_contact' that might retrieve similar information. Without any usage context, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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