Metabase MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context about the 100-card limit and the distinction between listing vs. discovery functionality, though it doesn't mention pagination or error behavior. With good annotation coverage, the description adds meaningful context 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 two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and key behavioral constraint (100-card limit), while the second provides crucial usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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, rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, and key behavioral constraints. The main gap is lack of output format information (no output schema exists), but for a list operation with good annotations, this is a minor omission.

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 both parameters fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (collection filtering and limit details). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for 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 clearly states the action ('List'), resource ('questions/cards in Metabase'), and scope ('Returns up to 100 cards'), with explicit differentiation from the sibling tool 'search_content' for discovery purposes. This provides specific verb+resource+scope and distinguishes from alternatives.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('List questions/cards') versus when to use an alternative ('Use search_content for discovery'), providing clear guidance on tool selection. This directly addresses the sibling tool relationship with explicit alternative naming.

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