dune-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'restricting access to the owner' which implies a mutation with permission changes, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, reversibility, or effects on existing access. Significant gaps remain 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 appropriately sized with a clear purpose statement followed by Args/Returns sections. It's front-loaded and efficient, though the Returns section could be more specific.

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 it's a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but has an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and basic parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details and explicit usage guidelines.

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%, but the description adds meaning by explaining 'query_id' as 'unique identifier of the query'. However, with only 1 parameter and no schema descriptions, it partially compensates but doesn't fully detail format or constraints.

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 verb 'make private' and the resource 'query', specifying it restricts access to the owner. It distinguishes from sibling 'make_query_public' by indicating opposite privacy action.

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 implies usage when restricting query access, but doesn't explicitly state when to use vs alternatives like 'make_query_public' or provide prerequisites. Context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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