MySQL MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('List all tables') and default behavior (uses current database if omitted), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, permissions needed, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, fields). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List all tables') and adds necessary context (database specification). Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns a list of tables. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., table names, metadata), error conditions, or other contextual details needed for effective use. The simplicity of the tool (1 optional parameter) mitigates this somewhat, but more completeness is expected for operational clarity.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter ('database') with its description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 ('List') and resource ('tables'), specifying scope ('all tables in the specified database or current database if not specified'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'describe_table' (detailed info) and 'list_databases' (different resource), though not explicitly named. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'describe_all_tables' which might overlap in purpose.

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 implies when to use it (to get a list of tables) and provides context about database specification, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like 'describe_all_tables' for more detailed info. Usage is clear from context but lacks explicit guidance on sibling tool selection.

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