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 this is a retrieval operation ('Retrieve details'), implying it's read-only, but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, or error handling. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action, leaving gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 concise, using a clear main sentence followed by 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections. Every sentence adds value: the purpose, parameter meaning, and return details. It's front-loaded with the core action, though the formatting could be slightly more integrated (e.g., avoiding separate sections if not standard).

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 nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and high-level return content. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details, which are minor gaps given the simple read-only nature.

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 semantics for the single parameter: 'query_id: The unique identifier of the query.' This clarifies that 'query_id' refers to a saved query's ID, not a query string or other identifier. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing essential context that the schema lacks, making it clear what the parameter represents.

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: 'Retrieve details about a saved query.' It uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('saved query'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_query_results' or 'get_execution_status', which also retrieve query-related information but focus on different aspects.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a saved query ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_query_results' (which might return query execution results) or 'update_query' (which modifies queries). This leaves the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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