Metabase MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that it executes an existing card and returns results, which implies a read operation with output, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like potential latency, result format, or error conditions beyond what annotations provide.

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 function. It's front-loaded with the core action and result, with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more detailed without losing conciseness.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, nested objects) and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it doesn't explain return values like result format or structure, and it lacks context on usage compared to siblings, leaving gaps in completeness.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description mentions 'existing question/card' and 'optional parameters for parameterized queries', which aligns with the schema but doesn't add significant meaning beyond it, such as examples or constraints on parameter values.

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 states the tool's purpose as executing an existing question/card and getting results, which is clear but somewhat vague. It distinguishes from siblings like get_card or list_cards by specifying execution, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from execute_query, which might be a similar action on a different resource.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like needing an existing card ID, nor does it compare to siblings such as execute_query for queries versus cards, or get_card for metadata retrieval instead of execution.

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