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 it's a creation operation, implying mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, error handling, or what the response looks like (e.g., success/failure indicators). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it safely and effectively.

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 unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 of a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, authentication needs), response format, or error conditions, leaving the agent with incomplete information to invoke the tool correctly in a real-world context.

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 parameters (collection, data, expand, fields) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying 'data' is used for creation, which is already evident from the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 a new record') and target resource ('in a collection'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like pb_records_bulk_create or pb_collections_create, which would require mentioning it's for single-record creation versus bulk operations or collection-level operations.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like pb_records_bulk_create for multiple records or pb_collections_create for creating collections themselves, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing an existing collection or authentication context.

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