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 'Get' implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose if this requires special permissions, returns real-time or historical data, has rate limits, or affects system performance. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral details is a significant gap, making it hard for an agent to assess risks or expectations.

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 concise with two short phrases, but it's not well-structured or front-loaded. 'Arguments:' is incomplete and adds no information, wasting space. While brief, it could be more efficient by integrating the parameter hint into the main sentence or omitting the redundant 'Arguments:' label. It's minimal but not optimally crafted for clarity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves session information. It doesn't explain what 'session information' entails (e.g., session IDs, durations, resources) or the return format. With 1 parameter fully covered by the schema, the main gap is in behavioral and output context, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's 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 description includes 'Arguments:' but doesn't elaborate on the parameter. The input schema has 100% coverage, with 'user_name' fully described as 'User name to analyze. Use '*' to get all users.' Since the schema provides complete parameter documentation, the description adds no value beyond implying a parameter exists. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get the Teradata session information for user' states a verb ('Get') and resource ('Teradata session information'), but it's vague about what specific session information is retrieved (e.g., active sessions, connection details, performance metrics). It doesn't clearly distinguish from siblings like 'dba_userDelay' or 'dba_userSqlList', which might relate to user activity or queries. The description is minimal and lacks specificity, falling short of distinguishing this tool's unique purpose.

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_userDelay' (which might show user delays) and 'dba_userSqlList' (which might list user SQL queries), there's no indication of how 'session information' differs or overlaps. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing administrative access or specific database contexts, leaving the agent without usage context.

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