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. It discloses authentication behavior ('If not authenticated with CData Sync, you will be prompted for credentials'), which is valuable context beyond the input schema. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or performance characteristics that would be helpful for a tool with 9 parameters.

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 with four sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: stating the tool's function, noting authentication behavior, differentiating from a sibling, and providing usage context. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though the authentication note could be slightly more concise.

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 (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description does a good job covering purpose, usage guidelines, and authentication. However, it could better address behavioral aspects like pagination (implied by skipTable parameter) or what 'job compatibility' entails, leaving some gaps for a tool of this scope.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, only implying that parameters relate to 'job configuration and connection capabilities.' This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('List tables available to add') and resource ('to a specific job'), and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_connection_tables by noting it's 'filtered for job compatibility.' This provides specific differentiation.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use when expanding job scope or adding new tables to existing job') and provides an alternative ('Similar to get_connection_tables but filtered for job compatibility'), giving clear guidance on tool selection.

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