PocketBase MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the admin-only restriction, which is useful context, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as what types of settings can be updated, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, or authentication requirements beyond the implied admin role. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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 with just one phrase ('Update application settings (admin only)'), which is front-loaded and wastes no words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and access restriction efficiently.

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 as an admin mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, error handling, or specific use cases, which are crucial for safe and effective tool invocation. The admin hint is helpful but insufficient for full contextual understanding.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'settings' documented as a 'Settings object to update'. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of settings fields or format expectations. Since the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but no extra value is contributed by the 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 ('Update') and resource ('application settings'), making the purpose understandable. It also specifies the admin-only restriction, which distinguishes it from non-admin tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like pb_admin_update_user or pb_collections_update, which also perform updates in different contexts.

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 by stating 'admin only', suggesting it should be used when administrative privileges are required. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pb_admin_get_settings (for reading) or other admin update tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions beyond the admin requirement.

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