coremcp

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

The description claims a read operation ('Lists all database views'), but annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which contradicts this by suggesting it's a destructive, non-read-only operation. This is an annotation contradiction, as the description misrepresents the tool's behavior relative to the structured hints.

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 concise and well-structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and scope, and the second provides a helpful definition of views. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it front-loaded and efficient.

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 complexity of a tool with annotations indicating destructive and non-read-only behavior, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the destructive nature, potential side effects, or output format, and there's no output schema to compensate. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 description does not add meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'source_name'. The schema already describes it as 'The name of the database source', so the description provides no additional parameter details. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Lists all database views'), the resource ('in a source'), and includes additional context ('with their columns') and definition ('Views are virtual tables based on stored queries'). It distinguishes from siblings like list_tables by specifying views rather than tables.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention when to choose list_views over list_tables or query_database, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the tool name and description alone.

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