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 and adds valuable behavioral context beyond the input schema. It discloses authentication requirements (prompt for credentials if not authenticated), execution behavior (tasks run sequentially or parallel), and constraints (running jobs cannot be modified/deleted until complete). It does not mention rate limits or error handling, but covers key operational traits.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds necessary context (authentication, execution mode, parameter usage, constraints) without redundancy. It could be slightly more structured but remains efficient with zero wasted sentences.

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 (executing jobs with authentication and behavioral constraints), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job covering key aspects like purpose, usage, and behavioral traits. It lacks details on output format or error responses, but for a tool with rich schema coverage and no annotations, it is reasonably complete.

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?

The description adds some meaning for parameters like 'waitForResults' (explaining its effect on synchronous vs. asynchronous execution) and implies job identification via name or ID. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly, so the description provides only marginal additional value beyond the schema's detailed 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Run a job immediately, bypassing its schedule') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'cancel_job' or 'read_jobs' by emphasizing immediate execution rather than scheduled runs or status queries. It specifies the resource (job) and the unique action of bypassing schedules.

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 clear context on when to use this tool (to run a job immediately) and mentions an alternative approach (using waitForResults parameter for synchronous vs. asynchronous execution). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it compared to siblings like 'cancel_job' or 'read_jobs', which limits the score.

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