dune-mcp

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 states the tool creates a table, implying a write operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling, or rate limits. The 'Returns' section mentions a confirmation but lacks details on format or potential errors, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 with clear sections (description, args, returns, example) and front-loaded purpose. It's appropriately sized for a 4-parameter tool with complex nested data. However, the example is lengthy and could be slightly trimmed without losing clarity, and some redundancy exists (e.g., restating parameter names in the description).

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 complexity (mutation with 4 parameters, nested objects in 'columns', no annotations, but has output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers all parameters in detail and includes an example, which is crucial for understanding the 'columns' structure. The output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to explain return values extensively, but it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., error cases).

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 fully compensate. It does so effectively: it documents all 4 parameters (namespace, table_name, columns, is_public), provides detailed semantics for 'columns' (including nested structure with name, type, nullable, and data type enums), and clarifies defaults (nullable default True, is_public default false). This adds substantial value beyond the bare 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 tool's purpose: 'Create a new table with a defined schema.' This specifies the verb ('create') and resource ('table'), and the mention of 'defined schema' adds useful detail. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'upload_csv' (which might also create tables) or 'clear_table' (which modifies existing tables), keeping 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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'upload_csv' (which might create tables from CSV files) or 'create_query' (which might involve table creation indirectly), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for use. The example shows usage but doesn't explain when it's appropriate.

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