Fetch a stored SQL query with its parameters, affected tables, and lint findings to review or reuse in database analysis.
One saved query: header fields, parameters, the SQL, what tables it touches, and lint findings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation already declares readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that by specifying the result contents: header fields, parameters, SQL, tables touched, and lint findings. It does not mention behavior for a missing saved query, but that is minor for a read-only retrieval 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?
One concise, front-loaded sentence; every element adds useful information about the returned object. There is no repetition of schema fields or annotation content.
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?
Complexity is low: one required parameter, a read-only annotation, and no output schema. The description gives a helpful output summary, but it omits the meaning of the query parameter, not-found behavior, and any relationship to sibling tools like list_queries. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.
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 0% and the only parameter is a bare string named 'query'. The description never clarifies whether query is a saved-query name, ID, or SQL text, so the agent must guess what value to pass. The phrase 'One saved query' only implies the result type, not the parameter format.
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 names the resource (a single saved query) and enumerates its contents, so it is clear what the tool returns and is not a tautology. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'retrieves', and it only implicitly differentiates from list_queries via 'One'.
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 guidance is given for when to use get_query versus list_queries, save_query, delete_query, or other siblings. The singular 'One saved query' hints at retrieving one item, but there is no explicit context, prerequisite, or exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.