Teradata MCP 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 only states what the tool does ('Get... information') without mentioning any behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, requires permissions, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interact with it safely and effectively.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get'), making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for efficiency in tool selection.

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 for a tool that might return complex version information. It doesn't explain what the output includes (e.g., version number, release details, compatibility info) or any prerequisites, making it harder for an agent to use effectively without additional context.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so it appropriately avoids redundancy. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't introduce any confusion about inputs.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Teradata database version information'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'dba_databaseList' or 'dba_sessionInfo', which might also provide database-related information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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. With siblings like 'dba_databaseList' and 'dba_sessionInfo' that might offer related database metadata, there's no indication of when this specific version-fetching tool is preferred or what contexts it's designed for.

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