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. It mentions the admin requirement which is useful, but doesn't describe what 'List all users' actually returns, whether it's paginated (though schema hints at this), what format the results are in, or any rate limits. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 - just 5 words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it might be too brief given the tool's complexity (admin tool with 4 parameters and no output schema), potentially sacrificing completeness for brevity.

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 this is an admin tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, what admin permissions are required, or how this differs from other user-related tools. The minimal description leaves too many contextual questions unanswered for proper tool selection and invocation.

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 4 parameters (filter, page, perPage, sort). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 ('List') and resource ('all users'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It also includes the important constraint 'admin only' which clarifies the required permissions. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar list tools like pb_collections_list or pb_records_list beyond mentioning it's for users.

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 minimal guidance - only that it's 'admin only' which indicates permission requirements. It doesn't explain when to use this versus other user-related tools (like pb_auth_get_user for single users) or other list tools. No explicit alternatives, exclusions, or context for choosing this tool are provided.

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