bigquery.query.runRuns BigQuery SQL queries only when scan size stays under a configurable max bytes billed limit, helping prevent unexpected query costs.
Run a query only if it scans under max_bytes_billed (default 1e9 bytes).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sql | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| max_bytes_billed | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it only discloses the bytes-billed guard and default. It does not clarify whether the query is read-only or can mutate data, what happens when the cap is exceeded, timeout/auth behavior, or how results are returned.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler. It is appropriately terse, though arguably too minimal for a query-execution tool with no annotations.
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?
Even considering the output schema, the definition omits critical context for a query runner: read-only vs DML behavior, failure mode when the cap is exceeded, and the relationship to the dry-run sibling. The cost guard is useful but insufficient for safe invocation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description explains the least obvious parameter, max_bytes_billed, including its default and enforcement threshold. However, it leaves sql and project_id semantics undocumented, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Run a query') and adds a cost-scope condition. It does not differentiate the tool from its relevant sibling bigquery.query.dry_run, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
It gives a hard precondition ('only if it scans under max_bytes_billed') but does not say when to use this versus bigquery.query.dry_run or other query tools. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.