PocketBase MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but provides none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only or mutation operation, what side effects occur (email sending, temporary token generation), security implications, rate limits, or response format. For a security-sensitive operation, this lack of transparency is critical.

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 at just three words, with no wasted verbiage. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of being under-specified for a security operation. While structurally minimal, it could benefit from slightly more content to be genuinely helpful.

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?

For a password reset tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after the request, what the user experiences, error conditions, or security considerations. Given the sensitive nature of password operations and the lack of structured metadata, more descriptive context is needed.

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 already documents both parameters (email and collection) adequately. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter relationships or constraints.

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 'Request password reset' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't explain what resource is being acted upon (user accounts) or what the actual outcome is (sending a reset email/link). While the purpose is somewhat inferable, it lacks the verb+resource clarity needed for higher scoring.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'confirm_password_reset' available, there's no indication of the workflow relationship or prerequisites. The description doesn't mention authentication state requirements, error conditions, or typical use cases.

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