Examplary 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. 'Scan' implies a read operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's idempotent, requires specific permissions, modifies data (e.g., marks answers as scanned), or has side effects (e.g., triggers processing). The description is minimal and lacks operational 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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, though brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a mutation-like 'post' operation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'scan' does operationally, what the 'id' parameter represents, or what the tool returns, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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%, and the description doesn't mention parameters at all. The single parameter 'id' is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving its meaning (e.g., exam ID, session ID, document ID) ambiguous. The description fails to 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 'Scan student answers from a document' clearly states the tool's action (scan) and resource (student answers from a document). It distinguishes from siblings like 'postExamsidSessions' (create sessions) or 'postExamsidPrint' (print exams), but doesn't specify what 'scan' entails (e.g., OCR, extraction, analysis).

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires an existing exam session), exclusions, or compare to similar tools like 'postExamsidSessionssessionIdFeedback' (which might handle feedback instead of scanning).

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