Save hours every week. This sql board tool toolkit gives you a battle-tested prompt and operating playbook for restaurant/brand growth. No setup, works in any LLM chatbot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Optional user query to scope the analysis. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about what the tool returns, whether it is read-only, or what happens with the optional query. The only behavioral claims ("no setup," "works in any LLM chatbot") are promotional rather than operational.
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?
It is short, but every sentence is a sales pitch ("Save hours every week," "battle-tested," "No setup") rather than information the agent can act on. Front-loading a benefit claim instead of the tool's function wastes the most valuable sentence.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and only one optional parameter, the definition's complexity is low but the description still fails to state the tool's function or output. An agent has no basis for deciding what this produces for a restaurant/brand growth SQL analysis.
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% with a single optional parameter already documented as "Optional user query to scope the analysis." The description adds no syntax, format, or scoping detail beyond that, so the schema-covered baseline of 3 applies.
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?
"This sql board tool toolkit gives you a battle-tested prompt and operating playbook" essentially restates the tool name in marketing language; the only substantive signal is the domain hint "restaurant/brand growth." There is no verb describing an operation (generate, analyze, diagnose) and nothing distinguishes it from siblings sql-analyze-tool, sql-diag-tool, sql-formula-tool, sql-tpl-tool, or the many other *-board-tool variants.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite information is given. "No setup, works in any LLM chatbot" describes portability, not selection criteria, and the agent is left guessing why it would pick this over sql-analyze-tool or sql-diag-tool.
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.