UAAR University MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide comprehensive behavioral hints (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world). The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations declare. It doesn't mention pagination behavior, return format, or any constraints beyond the basic purpose.

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 states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the essential information.

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?

For a simple list operation with comprehensive annotations and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. The annotations cover safety and behavioral aspects, and the output schema will document return values. The main gap is the lack of parameter guidance, but given the tool's simplicity, this is less critical.

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% schema description coverage, the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions no parameters at all, failing to compensate for the schema gap. However, since there are only 2 parameters (limit/offset) with clear default values in the schema, the baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema structure itself provides some guidance.

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 ('List') and resource ('academic departments'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling list tools (like 'list_scholarships' or 'list_upcoming_events') beyond specifying the resource type.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate versus other department-related tools (like 'get_department_contact' or 'admin_add_department'), or any contextual limitations.

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