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, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation with potentially incomplete results. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this—it implies a listing action but doesn't disclose details like return format, pagination, or what 'connected' entails. With annotations covering core safety traits, the description adds some value but lacks depth.

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 with zero wasted words—'List all connected databases' directly conveys the core action and scope. It's front-loaded and avoids unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, annotations covering safety, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context about the result format (e.g., list of names vs. full objects) or how 'connected' is defined. For a read-only listing tool, this is acceptable but leaves gaps an agent might need to infer.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. This aligns with the baseline expectation for parameterless tools, where the description should not waste space on nonexistent inputs.

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 connected databases' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('connected databases'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_database_schema' or 'search_content' by focusing on enumeration rather than retrieval or filtering. However, it doesn't specify what 'connected' means in this context, which slightly reduces specificity.

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 (e.g., whether databases must be configured first), compare to siblings like 'get_collections' or 'search_content', or indicate when it's appropriate (e.g., for discovery vs. detailed inspection). This leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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