Superset MCP Integration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the endpoint ('/api/v1/query/{id}') and that it retrieves 'detailed information,' which implies a read-only operation. However, it lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'complete query execution information' entails, leaving behavioral gaps for the agent.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by endpoint details and clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details like authentication or error handling. For a read operation with minimal structured data, it meets the minimum viable threshold but has clear gaps.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: 'query_id: ID of the query to retrieve.' Since schema description coverage is 0% (the schema only provides type and title), this compensates well by explaining the parameter's purpose. However, it does not specify ID format constraints or examples, preventing a perfect score.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get details for a specific query' and 'retrieve detailed information about a specific query execution.' It specifies the verb ('get') and resource ('query'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'superset_query_list' or 'superset_saved_query_get_by_id' beyond the ID-based retrieval, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 mentions retrieving details for a 'specific query' by ID, but does not clarify scenarios for its use over other query-related tools (e.g., 'superset_query_list' for listing queries or 'superset_saved_query_get_by_id' for saved queries), leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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