Postgres MCP Pro

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It doesn't disclose whether this executes read-only queries, mutations, or both; what permissions are needed; whether it's safe for production; what happens on errors; or any rate limits. 'Execute any SQL query' is dangerously broad without safety context.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It directly states the tool's function without fluff or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 tool that executes arbitrary SQL with no annotations, no output schema, and siblings offering analysis/explanation functions, this description is severely incomplete. It lacks critical context on safety, return values, error handling, and differentiation from other tools, making it inadequate for responsible agent use.

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% with one parameter 'sql' documented as 'SQL to run'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this—it doesn't clarify syntax, supported SQL dialects, parameter binding, or query length limits. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the minimal documentation.

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 'Execute any SQL query' states the basic action (execute) and resource (SQL query), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from siblings like analyze_db_health or explain_query. It doesn't specify what database/context the SQL runs against or what types of queries are supported.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_query_indexes or explain_query. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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