UAAR University MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide strong behavioral hints (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false). The description adds minimal context beyond this—it implies a search operation but doesn't disclose details like result format, pagination behavior (though limit/offset parameters exist), or error conditions. With annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description meets baseline expectations without adding rich behavioral context.

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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('Search for books in the university library by title, author, or ISBN') directly contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, 1 required), rich annotations (covering read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world behavior), and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the search scope but could improve by addressing parameter details or usage context, though annotations and output schema reduce the burden on the description.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions searching 'by title, author, or ISBN,' which partially explains the 'query' parameter but doesn't address 'category,' 'limit,' or 'offset.' It adds some value for the required parameter but leaves others undocumented, resulting in a baseline score given the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 searching for books in the university library by specific criteria (title, author, or ISBN). It uses a specific verb ('Search') and identifies the resource ('books in the university library'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_book_availability' or 'get_borrowed_books', which might have overlapping domains.

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 sibling tools like 'check_book_availability' (which might verify specific book status) or 'get_borrowed_books' (which might list user-specific loans), leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.

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