Metabase MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't specify what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, what happens when optional parameters are omitted, or any rate limits/constraints. The return type is documented but not the content or structure of the metadata.

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 with a clear purpose statement followed by organized Args and Returns sections. While somewhat lengthy due to listing 9 parameters, every sentence serves a purpose - no redundant or unnecessary information. The formatting helps readability.

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 9 parameters and no annotations, the description does reasonably well by documenting all parameters and the return type. However, it lacks important context about authentication requirements, error handling, what constitutes valid 'details' or 'schedule' objects, and how this tool differs from other update operations in the sibling list.

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 0% schema description coverage for 9 parameters, the description provides excellent parameter semantics by listing all parameters with brief explanations of what each controls. It clarifies that 'database_id' identifies the target, 'details' are connection details, 'auto_run_queries' enables auto run, etc. This significantly compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 ('Update') and resource ('an existing database connection in Metabase'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'update_metabase_card', 'update_metabase_collection', etc., which all follow the same 'update_metabase_X' pattern.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_metabase_database' or other update tools. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing database_id), error conditions, or typical use cases for updating database connections versus creating new ones.

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