PocketBase MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral insight. It implies a write operation ('confirm') but doesn't disclose permissions needed, side effects (e.g., updates user status), error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('confirm email verification') and includes the essential constraint ('with token'), making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 complexity (a mutation with security implications), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'confirm' does behaviorally, what happens on success/failure, or any dependencies, 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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters ('token' and 'collection'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'token' is for verification, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('confirm') and resource ('email verification'), specifying it requires a token. It distinguishes from siblings like 'request_verification' (which initiates) and 'confirm_email_change' (which handles different verification). However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'confirm' entails (e.g., marking email as verified), keeping 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., must be called after 'request_verification'), exclusions, or how it differs from similar tools like 'confirm_email_change' or 'confirm_password_reset'. The description alone offers no usage context.

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