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 adds context beyond basic purpose: it specifies the return format ('Array of table names in exact format needed for tasks'), lists common errors with troubleshooting tips, and mentions prerequisites ('Must be created and tested first' in schema description). However, it doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, performance implications, or authentication details beyond error hints.

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: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by clearly labeled sections for returns and common errors. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, returns, and errors, which helps compensate for the lack of output schema. However, it could improve by mentioning sibling tool relationships more explicitly or detailing behavioral traits like pagination handling (implied by skipTable) more clearly.

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 8 parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is added.

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 verb ('Discover') and resource ('available tables/views in a data source'), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning it's 'Essential before creating jobs'—differentiating it from job-related tools like execute_job or get_job_tables. The title being null doesn't affect this clarity.

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 for when to use this tool ('Essential before creating jobs'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings. It implies usage for discovery tasks but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to tools like get_table_columns or read_connections.

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