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 it's a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't confirm if it's safe, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be (e.g., JSON, CSV). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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 with two sentences, but the second sentence 'Arguments:' is incomplete and adds no value, wasting space. The first sentence is front-loaded with the core purpose, but overall structure could be improved by removing the redundant 'Arguments:' or integrating parameter hints more effectively.

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 complexity of a database metrics tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'flow control metrics' entail (e.g., query throttling, resource limits), potential data formats, or error handling. For a tool that likely returns structured data, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (start_date and end_date) well-documented in the schema. The description mentions 'Arguments:' but doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how the date range is inclusive or exclusive. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('Teradata flow control metrics') with a specific scope ('for a specified date range'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on flow control metrics, which is different from other dba_* tools like dba_databaseSpace or dba_sessionInfo. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with potential alternatives like dba_resusageSummary, which might offer related metrics.

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 prerequisites, such as needing specific permissions or database access, or compare it to siblings like dba_resusageSummary that might provide similar data. The only implied usage is for retrieving flow control metrics within a date range, but this is basic and lacks context.

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