eduframe-mcp

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

While annotations declare readOnly/idempotent hints, the description fails to resolve the semantic contradiction between the singular 'current educator' name and the list-oriented pagination parameters. It does not disclose what constitutes 'current' (active session? authenticated user?) or explain why a singular getter supports cursor-based pagination typically used for collections.

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 extremely concise (four words), but this brevity is insufficient given the tool's ambiguous semantics. While no words are wasted, the lack of content fails to address critical distinctions needed for proper tool selection.

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?

Absent an output schema, the description fails to clarify the return structure (single object vs paginated list). The 'current' qualifier remains unexplained, and the relationship between the educator entity and teacher entities (per sibling tools) is undefined, leaving significant gaps for an agent attempting to use this tool correctly.

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 100% schema description coverage, the parameters cursor and per_page are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific context, but the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema self-documents the pagination intent.

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 'Get an educator record' is tautological, merely restating the tool name with 'an' instead of 'the current'. It fails to distinguish 'educator' from sibling 'teacher' entities (get_teacher, get_teachers) or clarify what 'current' means (authenticated user?). The mismatch between the singular 'record' and the pagination parameters (cursor, per_page) creates ambiguity about whether this retrieves one or many records.

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 provided on when to use this versus get_teacher or get_teachers. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., authentication requirements to identify the 'current' educator) or filtering capabilities implied by the pagination parameters.

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