Postgres MCP Pro

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions analysis and recommendations but lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, execution time, side effects (e.g., if it modifies the database), or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and earns its place by clearly stating the tool's function.

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 complexity of database analysis, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, output details, or usage context. For a tool with 2 parameters and potential side effects, more information is needed to be fully helpful.

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 both parameters ('max_index_size_mb' and 'method'). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the impact of these parameters on the analysis. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Analyze frequently executed queries in the database and recommend optimal indexes.' It specifies the action (analyze queries, recommend indexes) and resource (database). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_query_indexes' or 'get_top_queries,' which may have overlapping functionality.

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. With siblings like 'analyze_query_indexes,' 'get_top_queries,' and 'analyze_db_health,' there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage is implied but not specified.

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