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. While it mentions the admin restriction, it doesn't describe what 'send a test email' actually does - whether it triggers a real email, what content it contains, whether it's rate-limited, what happens on success/failure, or what the response looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 at just 5 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and immediately follows with the critical admin restriction. Every word serves a clear purpose in this minimal description.

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 that this is a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'test email' means operationally, what the expected outcome is, or provide any behavioral context beyond the admin restriction. For a tool that presumably sends actual emails, more context about the operation would be helpful.

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%, with both parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (email address and template selection). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('send a test email') and resource ('email'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'pb_auth_request_password_reset' or other email-related tools, which would require explicit comparison to achieve a score of 5.

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 clear context with '(admin only)', indicating this is restricted to administrative users. This helps the agent understand when it's appropriate to use this tool versus general user tools. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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