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 minimal behavioral context beyond this—it implies a broad search across multiple content types but doesn't disclose specifics like result format, pagination, or search scope limitations. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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. It front-loads the core purpose ('Search across Metabase content') and provides relevant examples without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place.

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 (search with filtering), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it fails to explain what the search returns (e.g., result structure, fields), leaving a gap in completeness for the agent.

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 well-documented in the schema (query and type with enum). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain query syntax, type filtering implications, or default behaviors. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema.

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 ('Search') and resource ('Metabase content') with specific examples (dashboards, cards, collections). It distinguishes from siblings like get_card or list_dashboards by indicating a cross-content search capability. However, it doesn't explicitly mention all content types listed in the schema (e.g., database, table).

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 when to prefer search_content over specific get_ or list_ tools, nor does it indicate any prerequisites or constraints for usage. The agent must 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.