Boxtalk Data MCP Server

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 describes the tool's purpose and output content, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get'), error handling, or performance considerations. The description adds basic context but lacks depth for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output details without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides a clear purpose and output content, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or return format. It is complete enough for a simple read operation but could benefit from more context to compensate for the absence of structured metadata.

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 the input schema fully documenting the single 'table' parameter. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 specific action ('Get') and resource ('structure/schema of a SQL Server table'), with precise details about what information is retrieved ('column names, data types, and constraints'). It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_table_count, get_table_data, and query_data by focusing on metadata rather than row counts, data content, or custom queries.

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 for obtaining table metadata, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_table_data for actual data or query_data for custom queries. It provides some context by specifying the resource type (SQL Server table), but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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