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 several important behavioral traits: authentication requirements ('If not authenticated with CData Sync, you will be prompted for credentials'), constraints on usage ('Cannot modify or delete connections currently in use by running jobs'), and provider-specific behavior ('Connection strings are provider-specific - consult CData documentation'). It also mentions that 'To change providers, delete and recreate the connection,' which is valuable operational guidance. The main gap is lack of information about rate limits, error handling, or response format.

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 at 4 sentences, with the core purpose stated first. Each sentence adds value: authentication requirements, connection definition, provider-specific guidance, and operational constraints. There's no redundant information, though the final sentence about changing providers could be integrated more smoothly with the preceding content about constraints.

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?

For a mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides reasonable coverage of authentication, constraints, and provider-specific considerations. However, it lacks information about what happens after operations (success/failure responses, what gets returned), doesn't mention error conditions beyond the 'in use' constraint, and doesn't provide examples of common provider strings or connection string formats. Given the complexity of connection management, more complete guidance would be beneficial.

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 schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it mentions connection strings are 'provider-specific' and 'may contain credentials,' which slightly elaborates on the schema's 'Format varies by provider' and 'handle securely' notes. However, it doesn't provide significant additional semantic context about how parameters interact or practical usage examples beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('create, update, or delete data connections') and identifies the resource ('data connections'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'read_connections' by emphasizing write operations, and from other write_* tools by focusing specifically on connection management rather than jobs, tasks, or other resources.

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 about when to use this tool ('Create, update, or delete data connections') and mentions important constraints ('Cannot modify or delete connections currently in use by running jobs'). It also implicitly distinguishes from 'read_connections' for read operations. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like 'write_jobs' or other write_* tools, nor does it provide explicit alternatives for specific scenarios.

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