eduframe-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to deliver. It does not specify what data the meeting record contains, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens when the ID doesn't exist, or any authentication/authorization requirements. The verb 'Get' implies read-only, but this is weak inference without explicit confirmation.

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 appropriately brief at four words and is front-loaded with the action verb. However, the grammatical error ('an meeting' instead of 'a meeting') and extreme brevity that sacrifices necessary context prevent a perfect score.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity (single integer parameter), the description is incomplete. With no output schema and no annotations, it should at least indicate what fields or data structure the meeting record contains, or behavior on missing IDs. As written, it provides only marginally more information than the tool name itself.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage ('ID of the meeting to retrieve'), so the baseline score applies. The description itself adds no semantic information about the 'id' parameter beyond what the schema already provides, but the schema is sufficiently self-documenting.

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 meeting record' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal expansion. While it contains a verb (Get) and resource (meeting record), it fails to distinguish from sibling get_meetings_by_planned_course_id or explain what constitutes a 'meeting record'. The grammatical error ('an meeting' instead of 'a meeting') further reduces clarity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_meetings_by_planned_course_id. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing the meeting ID first), error conditions (e.g., ID not found), or selection criteria for this single-record retrieval versus batch retrieval.

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