Format a SQL query with keywords uppercased and clauses on separate lines. Pure CPU, instant.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"sql": "<sql>"
},
"name": "sql_prettify"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sql | Yes | SQL query |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / sqlAdded value: +{
+ "description": "SQL query",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "sql"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the important traits that this is a pure CPU operation with instant response, implying no network calls, no side effects, and idempotence. It omits what happens with malformed SQL (error vs. passthrough) and does not confirm the return value is a string.
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?
Two short sentences, zero waste, with the output format stated first and the performance characteristic appended. Everything is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.
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 one-parameter, low-complexity formatter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it specifies the transformation and its cost profile. The only gap is return-value/error behavior for invalid input, which is minor at this complexity.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — it does not mention handling of multiple statements, comments, or dialect differences that would affect the 'sql' input.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Format a SQL query') and adds the concrete output contract: keywords uppercased, clauses on separate lines. It does not name a sibling or contrast itself with nearby tools (css_minify, html_minify, indent), but the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated — an agent can infer this is for reformatting existing SQL text. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to an alternative for minifying or validating SQL. 'Pure CPU, instant' is a weak proxy for guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.