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 requirement, which is valuable context about permissions. However, it doesn't describe other important behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'List' but not explicit), pagination behavior (though parameters suggest it), rate limits, or what the output looks like (no output schema exists). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.

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—just four words—and front-loaded with the core purpose ('List all collections') followed by the critical constraint ('admin only'). There's no wasted language, and every word earns its place by providing essential information without 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 the tool's complexity (a list operation with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and admin requirement but lacks details on output format, error handling, or behavioral nuances like pagination limits. With no output schema, the description should ideally hint at return values, but it doesn't, leaving some context gaps for the agent.

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 all parameters well-documented (filter, page, perPage, sort). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of filter formats or sort options. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.

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 ('List all collections') and identifies the target resource ('collections'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from other collection tools (e.g., create, delete, update) by specifying it's for listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like pb_records_list or pb_backups_list beyond the resource type.

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 a crucial usage constraint: 'admin only', which indicates this tool requires administrative privileges. However, it doesn't provide guidance on when to use this versus other list tools (e.g., pb_records_list for records instead of collections) or mention alternatives like pb_collections_get for a specific collection. The guidance is implied but not explicit about sibling differentiation.

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