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 mentions the admin requirement but doesn't describe what 'update' entails - whether it's a partial or full update, what happens to unspecified fields, whether changes are reversible, or what the typical response looks like. For a mutation tool with 9 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unexplained.

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 core action and immediately specifies the admin requirement. Every word earns its place, making this an excellent example of efficient documentation.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens during an update operation, what permissions are needed beyond 'admin', what the typical response contains, or how to handle the various access rule parameters. The combination of complexity and lack of structured metadata requires more descriptive content than provided.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. It doesn't explain how parameters interact, which are optional versus required beyond the schema's indication, or provide usage examples. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('an existing collection'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pb_collections_create and pb_collections_delete by specifying it's for updating existing collections rather than creating new ones or deleting them. However, it doesn't specify what aspects of a collection can be updated, which prevents a perfect score.

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 usage context with '(admin only)', indicating this tool requires administrative privileges. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pb_collections_create for new collections or pb_collections_get for viewing collections. No guidance is given about prerequisites or when-not-to-use scenarios 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.