mcp_psql_manager

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions security features (AES-256-CBC encryption, SQL injection protection, input validation) which are valuable behavioral disclosures. However, it doesn't describe mutation consequences (what gets deleted/updated), error handling, performance characteristics, or what happens when actions fail.

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 reasonably concise with two sentences, but the first sentence is overloaded with 10 action names. The security features are mentioned but not integrated with the tool's purpose. The emoji adds character but no functional value. The structure could be improved by separating action listing from security features.

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?

For a complex tool with 12 parameters, 10 possible actions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return formats, error conditions, or how different actions map to different parameter requirements. The security claims are mentioned but not contextualized within the tool's operation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 12 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions the 10 action values but doesn't explain which parameters are required for which actions or how they interact.

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 this is a PostgreSQL Manager that performs 'безопасные операции с базой данных' (secure database operations) and lists 10 specific actions. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on PostgreSQL database operations rather than API or SSH management. However, it doesn't specify what makes it a 'manager' versus just a PostgreSQL tool.

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 the sibling tools (mcp_api_client, mcp_ssh_manager). It lists available actions but doesn't explain when to choose specific actions like 'quick_query' versus other query-related actions, or prerequisites for using the tool.

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