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 'admin only', which implies permission requirements, but doesn't cover other traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, what the output format looks like, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 ('Get log statistics (admin only)') that is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes essential context. There is no wasted verbiage, and every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (admin tool with 1 parameter) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what statistics are returned, how the filter works, or any behavioral details. For a tool with no structured output and minimal input guidance, it should do more to compensate for these gaps.

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 1 parameter with 100% description coverage ('Filter criteria for stats'), so the schema already documents the parameter. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as examples of filter syntax or what criteria are supported. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 'Get log statistics' states a verb ('Get') and resource ('log statistics'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what kind of statistics (e.g., counts, summaries, trends) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'pb_logs_list', which might retrieve raw logs instead of aggregated data. This makes it vague but not tautological.

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 clearly indicates the required context (administrative privileges) for using this tool. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'pb_logs_list' or other admin tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond admin access. This provides clear context but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives.

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