Hue MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: executes a specific type of SQL query (INSERT OVERWRITE DIRECTORY), writes to HDFS, downloads to local filesystem, and has a timeout default. However, it doesn't mention important aspects like whether the operation is destructive (OVERWRITE implies it might be), authentication requirements, error handling, or rate limits. The description adds value but leaves significant gaps.

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 perfectly structured: a clear purpose statement upfront, followed by context, then a well-organized parameter list with explanations and defaults, and finally the return value. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy. The information is front-loaded and efficiently presented.

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 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does an excellent job explaining parameters and stating the return type. However, for a tool that executes queries and downloads files, it lacks information about error conditions, file formats, what happens if the directory already exists, or security implications. The presence of an output schema helps, but behavioral context could be more complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful explanations for all 6 parameters beyond their titles: statement is 'SQL statement with INSERT OVERWRITE DIRECTORY', hdfs_directory is 'The HDFS directory where results are written', local_directory has default '.', dialect options are listed, file_pattern is 'Optional regex pattern to filter files', and timeout is 'Maximum wait time in seconds'. This adds substantial semantic value over the bare schema.

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 an INSERT OVERWRITE DIRECTORY query and download the results.' It distinguishes from siblings like hue_execute_query (general query execution) and hue_download_directory (download without query execution) by combining both operations. The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 clear context: 'This tool is for queries that write output to HDFS (like INSERT OVERWRITE DIRECTORY), then downloads the resulting files.' This implicitly distinguishes it from siblings that don't execute queries or don't download. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like hue_run_query_to_csv for different output formats.

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