Metabase MCP

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and open-world, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety information. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide - no information about pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'all dashboards' means in practice.

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 front-loaded with the core functionality and appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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 list operation with good annotations (read-only, idempotent, open-world) and no parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it doesn't explain what the return format looks like (e.g., array of dashboard objects, pagination structure), leaving gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents the input requirements. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since there are none, which is correct for this tool. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

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 all') and resource ('dashboards in Metabase'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_dashboard' or 'search_content', but it's specific enough to understand what the tool does.

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 like 'get_dashboard' (for a specific dashboard) or 'search_content' (for filtered searches). It simply states what the tool does without context about appropriate use cases.

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