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 'admin only' which hints at permission requirements, but doesn't describe what 'Create' entails behaviorally—whether it's idempotent, what happens on conflicts, rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 extremely concise with just 5 words, front-loading the essential information ('Create a new collection') and adding the critical constraint ('admin only') efficiently. Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy.

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 a mutation tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'Create' returns, how to handle the complex parameters like schema arrays or options objects, or what behavioral constraints exist beyond admin requirements. For a tool of this complexity, more 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 documents all 9 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, patterns, enums, and types. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in 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 ('Create') and resource ('new collection'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pb_collections_list or pb_collections_get by specifying creation rather than listing or retrieval. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from pb_collections_update, which also modifies collections.

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 some guidance with '(admin only)', indicating this tool requires administrative privileges. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like pb_collections_update for modifying existing collections or pb_backups_create for different resource types. The usage context is implied but not comprehensive.

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