MCP Postgres Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get the structure') but does not specify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, the format of the output, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with a database.

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, clear sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, efficiently conveying the core purpose without unnecessary details.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or output format, which are crucial for a database tool. The simplicity of the input schema does not compensate for these omissions.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, but the description does not add any meaning beyond what the input schema provides. It does not explain what 'schema' and 'table' parameters represent or their constraints. However, with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the baseline is 3 as the schema itself is minimal and straightforward.

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 ('Get') and resource ('structure of a database table'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_tables' or 'get_table_stats', which might also provide structural information, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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 such as 'list_tables' or 'get_constraints'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage entirely implied from the purpose alone.

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