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 states this is for authentication but doesn't describe what happens after login (e.g., session creation, token return, permissions granted), whether it has rate limits, what errors might occur, or any security considerations. For an authentication tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 phrase that immediately conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple authentication tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 an authentication tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., session token, admin permissions), what happens on failure, or how the authenticated state should be used with other tools. Given the complexity of authentication and the lack of structured data, more behavioral 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 fully documents both parameters (email and password). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as format requirements beyond 'email' format or password complexity rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 ('Authenticate') and the role ('as superuser/admin'), distinguishing it from the non-admin 'pb_auth_login' sibling tool. However, it doesn't specify what resource or system this authentication applies to (e.g., 'PocketBase admin panel'), leaving some ambiguity about the exact scope.

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 this should be used for admin-level authentication, but doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus the regular 'pb_auth_login' tool or other auth tools. It provides basic context (admin role) but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusion criteria.

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