Khan Academy MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes what the tool returns ('full structure... including units, lessons, and content items'), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get'), error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. The description adds some value but lacks comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines what the tool does, and the second provides critical context for when to use it. No wasted words 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 has 1 parameter with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose, distinguishes from siblings, and provides usage guidance. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral details (e.g., response format, error cases) to be fully comprehensive for a read operation.

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 100%, with the schema fully documenting the single 'slug' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no extra examples or constraints). According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 the resource 'full structure of a Khan Academy course', specifying it includes 'units, lessons, and content items'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_content' (likely single item), 'get_topic_tree' (different hierarchy), 'get_transcript' (different resource), 'list_subjects' (list vs. get), and 'search' (search vs. get).

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 explicitly provides when-to-use guidance by stating 'Use `list_subjects` or `search` to find course slugs', naming two alternative tools for discovering course slugs before using this tool. This clearly defines the prerequisite context and differentiates usage from siblings.

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