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 does so well. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool can run in sync or async modes (via waitForResults), returns specific result formats (success/async/error), and lists common errors with explanations. It doesn't cover rate limits or auth needs, but provides substantial operational 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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, important note, returns, common errors) and uses bullet points for readability. It's appropriately sized but could be slightly more front-loaded; the 'IMPORTANT' note is critical and placed well, though some redundancy exists between the description and schema for queries.

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 (6 parameters, mutation-like operation) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, constraints, return values, and errors. However, it doesn't explain the relationship between jobName and jobId parameters or provide examples of query names, leaving minor gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific information beyond the schema—it mentions 'queries' must 'match existing task patterns' and implies job context usage, but doesn't elaborate on parameter interactions or provide examples. It meets but doesn't exceed the baseline.

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 pre-defined queries') and resource ('within a job context'), distinguishing it from siblings like execute_job or read_tasks. It explicitly notes the limitation 'cannot run arbitrary SQL', which further clarifies its purpose relative to potential alternatives.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'for testing or ad-hoc operations' and 'can only execute queries already defined as tasks'. It implicitly contrasts with execute_job (which might run full jobs) and read_tasks (which only reads task definitions), offering clear context for selection.

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