Superset MCP Integration

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the operation is permanent and irreversible, it removes associated datasets, and it makes a specific API DELETE request. This covers destructive impact and scope beyond just the database connection 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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by implementation details, behavioral warnings, and parameter/return documentation. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and the structure flows logically from purpose to usage details.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good completeness: it explains the permanent nature, cascading effects on datasets, API endpoint details, parameter meaning, and return format. The main gap is lack of explicit prerequisites or permission requirements, which would be helpful for a deletion tool.

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% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description adds essential meaning by explaining that 'database_id' is the 'ID of the database to delete'. This fully compensates for the lack of schema documentation, providing clear parameter semantics despite the simple parameter structure.

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 specific action ('Delete a database connection') and resource ('database connection'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like superset_database_create, superset_database_update, and superset_database_list. It uses precise terminology that matches the tool's name and function.

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 clear context for when to use this tool by stating it's for deleting database connections, but it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives. It implies usage through the permanent nature of the operation, though lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools like superset_database_update.

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