UAAR University MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide key behavioral traits: read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and closed-world. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations cover (e.g., no rate limits, authentication needs, or result format details). However, it doesn't contradict annotations, so it meets the lower bar with annotations present.

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 and includes essential details (search criteria). Every part of the sentence earns its place.

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 (search operation), rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the resource and search fields, though it could benefit from more parameter guidance given the 0% schema coverage.

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 mentions search criteria ('by name or research interest'), which partially explains the 'query' parameter. However, it doesn't clarify the semantics of 'limit' or 'offset' (e.g., pagination behavior). With 0% coverage, the description adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the schema gap.

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 ('Search') and resource ('faculty members'), specifying search criteria ('by name or research interest'). It distinguishes from most siblings (e.g., 'search_courses', 'search_library_books') by focusing on faculty, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential faculty-related tools like 'admin_add_faculty'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention when to prefer this over other search tools (e.g., 'search_courses') or when to use it versus administrative tools like 'admin_add_faculty'. It only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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