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 states the tool retrieves metrics but doesn't mention whether it's read-only, requires permissions, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format looks like. For a query tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 brief but incomplete, ending abruptly with 'Arguments:' which adds no value and disrupts flow. The first sentence is clear, but the second fragment is wasteful. It could be more polished by omitting the trailing text or integrating parameter hints more smoothly.

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 tool's complexity (querying user metrics with date parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'feature usage metrics' entail, how results are structured, or any behavioral traits like data freshness or access controls. For a tool with no structured safety or output info, more context is needed.

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 100%, with both parameters ('start_date' and 'end_date') fully documented in the input schema. The description implies date-range filtering but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate with extra parameter context.

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: 'Get the user feature usage metrics for a specified date range.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('user feature usage metrics'), and scope ('for a specified date range'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'dba_userSqlList' or 'dba_userDelay' that also involve user data, which prevents a perfect 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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'dba_userSqlList' or 'dba_userDelay' that might overlap with user metrics, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage 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.