Run read-only SQL SELECTs over BahaMap views (v_exposure, v_city_league, v_rainfall, data_dictionary) with a 200-row cap to retrieve flood-exposure data for grounded analysis.
Run one read-only SELECT over the BahaMap atlas (views: v_exposure, v_city_league, v_rainfall, data_dictionary). Row cap 200.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it declares the operation read-only, restricts it to a single SELECT, names the allowed views, and discloses the 200-row cap. These are concrete behavioral constraints an agent needs before calling the tool.
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?
A single sentence front-loads the action ('Run one read-only SELECT'), then packs scope, allowed views, and the row cap with no filler. Every clause earns its place.
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?
For a one-parameter, read-only query tool with an output schema present, the description is complete: operation, safety, allowed data sources, and limit are all specified. It needs no additional explanation to invoke correctly.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that the single 'query' parameter should be a SELECT statement against the listed BahaMap views and that results are capped at 200 rows, adding meaning the schema lacks. It stops short of giving SQL examples or dialect details, but the parameter meaning is clear.
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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and a precise resource ('one read-only SELECT over the BahaMap atlas') and lists the exact views available. This clearly scopes the tool and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_schema and glossary_lookup.
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 conveys clear context: use this tool to execute SQL SELECT queries over the named atlas views, with a row cap. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the read-only SQL scope makes the intended use obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.