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. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like what happens on duplicate email, whether the operation is idempotent, what permissions are required beyond 'admin', what the response contains, or error conditions. For a user creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 5 words, front-loading the essential information ('Create a new user') and adding the critical constraint ('admin only') efficiently. Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy.

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 user creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what happens on success/failure, or important behavioral constraints. While concise, it lacks the necessary context for an agent to understand the full implications of invoking this administrative mutation tool.

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 fully documents all 7 parameters with their types, formats, defaults, and constraints. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

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 ('Create') and resource ('new user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It also adds the important constraint 'admin only', which provides valuable context about permissions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like pb_auth_register or pb_admin_update_user, which would require more specific scope information.

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 implies usage context through 'admin only', suggesting this is for administrative user creation rather than self-registration. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like pb_auth_register (public registration) or pb_admin_update_user (modifying existing users). The guidance is present but incomplete.

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