Metabase MCP

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds the specific detail that it returns 'dashboard details including its cards', which provides useful context about what information is returned beyond just the dashboard itself.

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 states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple read operation and front-loads the key information.

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 simple read tool with good annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld) and full schema coverage, the description is adequate but minimal. It doesn't explain the return format or structure, and there's no output schema to compensate. The description covers the basic purpose but leaves behavioral details implicit.

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 the single parameter 'dashboard_id' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'dashboard details including its cards', which specifies what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like list_dashboards (which lists multiple dashboards) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_card (which gets individual card details).

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites like needing a dashboard_id, when to use get_dashboard versus list_dashboards, or how it relates to get_card for individual card details.

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