CData Sync MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes several important behavioral traits: authentication requirements ('If not authenticated with CData Sync, you will be prompted for credentials'), prerequisites ('Connections must be created and tested before being used in jobs'), and concurrency behavior ('Multiple jobs can use the same connection simultaneously'). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, error handling, or response formats, which 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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It front-loads the core purpose, then lists the three actions with their purposes, followed by important behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value: authentication requirements, action explanations, prerequisites, concurrency note, and counting clarification. While efficient, it could be slightly more concise by combining some related points about the actions.

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 of providing necessary context. It explains the three main actions, authentication requirements, prerequisites for using connections in jobs, and concurrency behavior. However, for a tool with this many parameters and no output schema, it could benefit from mentioning what the return values look like for each action type or providing examples of typical responses.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about parameter usage (e.g., 'For counts, use 'list' and count results' which relates to the action parameter) and mentions that connections must be tested before use (relevant to the test action). However, it doesn't provide significant additional semantic meaning beyond what's already in the schema descriptions, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Access data source/destination connections that define how CData Sync connects to databases, APIs, and files.' It specifies the resource (connections) and distinguishes from siblings like write_connections (for creation/modification) and get_connection_tables (for table-level operations). The description also lists the three specific actions available (list, get, test), making the purpose highly specific.

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 versus alternatives. It states: 'Use 'list' to see all available connections, 'get' to retrieve details about a specific connection, 'test' to verify credentials and connectivity.' It also clarifies when NOT to use it: 'Note: For counting connections, use 'list' and count the results client-side.' This directly addresses potential confusion with counting operations and provides clear alternatives within the same tool.

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