PocketBase MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not cover critical aspects like whether this triggers an email, potential rate limits, error conditions (e.g., invalid email), or the expected response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to understand at a glance while being appropriately sized for its simple function.

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 tool that performs a mutation (requesting a password reset) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, and what happens after the request (e.g., email sent, success response). Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more context is needed for effective use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'email' parameter clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or usage context. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.

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 ('Request a password reset email') and the target ('for a user'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'pb_auth_confirm_password_reset', which handles confirmation of the reset process, leaving room for slight confusion about the distinct roles.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'pb_auth_login' for authentication or 'pb_auth_confirm_password_reset' for completing the reset. It lacks context on prerequisites, like whether the user must exist or be active, or any exclusions for usage.

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