MySQL 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 clearly indicates this is a read-only operation and specifies allowed SQL statement types, which is useful context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format, leaving gaps for a tool that executes arbitrary SQL.

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 key information (execute read-only SQL) and specifies allowed statement types. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (executing arbitrary SQL) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the read-only nature and allowed statements but misses critical context like response format, error behavior, or security constraints, which are important for such a powerful tool.

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%, with the schema fully documenting the single 'sql' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no syntax examples or constraints beyond the listed statement types). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Execute') and resource ('a read-only SQL query'), listing the exact SQL statement types allowed (SELECT, SHOW, DESCRIBE, EXPLAIN). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'execute' (which likely handles mutations) and 'describe_table' (which is more specific).

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('read-only SQL query') and provides clear alternatives by listing the allowed statement types. It implicitly excludes non-read operations, distinguishing it from potential mutation tools like 'execute' among siblings.

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