UAAR University MCP Server

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

Annotations cover key traits (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc.), so the description doesn't need to repeat these. It adds value by specifying the return values ('application ID and list of required fields'), which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it lacks details on error conditions, side effects, or operational constraints like rate limits.

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 action and includes essential return information. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 (a creation operation with no input parameters) and the absence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and returns but lacks details on error handling, prerequisites, or how it integrates with other admission tools, which could help the agent use it correctly in context.

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 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the action and outputs. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameter information is needed or provided.

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 action ('Start a new admission form application') and resource ('admission form'), with a specific verb. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'preview_admission_form' or 'confirm_and_submit_admission_form', which reduces it from 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, timing, or how it relates to other admission-related tools like 'fill_admission_field' or 'get_admission_form_status', leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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