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 return format ('Array of column objects with name, type, nullable, and key information') and common errors that reveal behavioral traits like permission requirements and exact naming conventions. This adds valuable context beyond the input schema, though it could mention rate limits or side effects if applicable.

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 stated first, followed by returns and errors in clear sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, returns, and common errors, which helps an agent use the tool correctly. However, it could improve by mentioning potential side effects or performance considerations, though the lack of output schema is mitigated by detailing the return format.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage nuances. It references parameters indirectly in error messages but doesn't enhance their semantics, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 ('Get column details') and resources ('for a specific table'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_connection_tables (which lists tables) or execute_query (which runs queries). It explicitly mentions what details are retrieved: names, data types, and keys.

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 (to get column metadata for a specific table) and includes implicit guidance via error messages (e.g., use exact table names from get_connection_tables). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as get_connection_tables for table lists instead of column details.

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