Metabase MCP

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. Annotations clearly indicate this is a read-only, idempotent, open-world operation. The description doesn't contradict these annotations, but also doesn't add meaningful context about what 'collections' are, how results are returned, or any limitations. With annotations covering the safety profile, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 perfectly concise at three words with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the essential information and contains no unnecessary verbiage. Every word earns its place in communicating the core functionality.

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 simple read operation with comprehensive annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint) and no parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema and with sibling tools that might overlap in functionality, the description could benefit from more context about what 'collections' are and how results are structured.

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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for parameterless tools where the schema handles all parameter documentation.

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 'List all collections' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('collections'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling tools like 'search_content' or 'list_databases' that might also involve listing operations, which prevents a perfect score.

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. With sibling tools like 'search_content' and 'list_databases' available, there's no indication whether this tool is for unfiltered listing, specific to collections, or how it differs from other listing/search tools on the server.

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