CData Sync MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the action ('Stop a currently running job'), outlines return values (success confirmation or error details), and lists common error scenarios, which helps anticipate outcomes. However, it doesn't mention side effects (e.g., if cancellation is irreversible) or operational constraints like rate limits.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by returns and common errors in clear sections. Every sentence adds value—no redundant or vague information—making it efficient for an agent to parse and understand the tool's behavior.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations or output schema), the description provides good contextual completeness by explaining what the tool does, its returns, and error cases. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., if data is lost) or prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), leaving some gaps for a mutation tool.

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 each parameter clearly documented in the input schema (e.g., 'jobName' as 'Name of the running job to cancel'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 with a specific verb ('Stop') and resource ('a currently running job'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'execute_job' (which starts jobs) and 'read_jobs' (which lists jobs). The description immediately communicates the core functionality without ambiguity.

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 context by specifying 'currently running job' and listing common errors like 'Job not running' and 'Job not found', which help identify when the tool is appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to cancel vs. delete a job) or mention prerequisites like required permissions.

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