Combined MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions authentication parameters ('db_user', 'db_group') but doesn't explain what permissions are needed, whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, or what the output looks like. For a tool with authentication requirements and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by a concise 'Args' section listing parameters with brief explanations. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 (3 parameters, authentication needs) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context like permissions or usage guidelines. With no annotations, it should do more to compensate, but the output schema reduces the burden slightly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'schema' is the 'Schema name to list tables from', 'db_user' is for 'Database user for authentication', and 'db_group' is 'Optional database group for permissions'. This clarifies the purpose of each parameter beyond their titles in the schema, but it doesn't provide format details or constraints, keeping it at a baseline level.

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: 'List all tables in a Redshift schema.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('tables in a Redshift schema'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_schemas' or 'describe_table', which would require a 5.

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 sibling tools like 'list_schemas' (for listing schemas instead of tables) or 'describe_table' (for detailed table information), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly stated.

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