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 'admin only' hints at permission requirements, it doesn't describe what happens during the update (e.g., whether all fields must be provided or only changed ones, validation rules beyond schema, error conditions, or side effects). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the essential information (update operation, target resource, permission constraint). Every word earns its place.

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 mutation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error handling, or important behavioral aspects like whether partial updates are supported. The 'admin only' hint is helpful but doesn't compensate for the missing context needed for safe and effective tool 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 documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific 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 verb ('Update') and resource ('existing user'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'pb_admin_create_user' and 'pb_admin_delete_user' by specifying it's for updates rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't specify what fields can be updated beyond the generic 'update' term.

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 includes 'admin only' which provides some context about permissions, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'pb_records_update' (which might handle user records differently) or provide guidance on prerequisites like authentication requirements.

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