Boxtalk Data MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: enforced pagination, query type restrictions (only SELECT allowed), automatic pagination handling, and rejection behavior for non-SELECT queries. It doesn't mention error handling, timeout behavior, or result format details.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste - first sentence states purpose and key constraint, second sentence provides critical usage restriction. Every word earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 database query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage of purpose, restrictions, and behavioral context. It could be more complete by mentioning result format, error handling, or connection/authentication requirements, but covers the essential aspects well.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about pagination being 'automatically applied' and query restrictions, but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 ('Execute a SELECT query') and resource ('SQL Server database'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for arbitrary SELECT queries rather than table-specific operations like get_table_data or get_table_structure.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('Execute a SELECT query') and when not to use it ('DDL and DML operations... are rejected'), providing clear alternatives for non-SELECT operations. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by being for arbitrary queries rather than predefined table operations.

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