Check a PeerDB CDC configuration before creating a pipeline. Verify source, destination, and table mappings to catch errors early without provisioning a pipeline.
Ask PeerDB to validate a CDC configuration without creating a pipeline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| config | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it is a dry-run validation that performs no pipeline creation, which explains the read-only behavior and reassures the agent no side effects occur.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though for a tool wrapping a large nested config object it is arguably too terse to be 'appropriately sized.'
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. However, for a validation tool with a complex required config, the description omits what validation actually checks or what constitutes a failure, leaving the agent with a minimal but workable picture.
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 carries the burden of explaining the single 'config' parameter, yet it only says 'a CDC configuration.' None of the ~15 CDCConfig fields (source_name, table_mappings, do_initial_snapshot, etc.) are explained, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap despite the schema's rich structure.
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?
States a specific verb (validate) and resource (CDC configuration) and explicitly bounds scope with 'without creating a pipeline.' This distinguishes it from the sibling create_pipeline without requiring the agent to open either schema.
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 phrase 'without creating a pipeline' effectively names the alternative (create_pipeline) and the when-not condition, giving clear context for selecting this tool. It stops short of stating when validation should be run (e.g., pre-flight before create), so it is not a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.