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 'Get[s]' metrics, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or output format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented, such as whether it requires admin access or returns aggregated vs. raw data.

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: 'Get the Teradata user delay metrics for a specified date range. Arguments:' It ends abruptly with 'Arguments:', which is redundant and disrupts flow. While the first sentence is clear, the second fragment adds no value and suggests the description was cut off, reducing overall effectiveness.

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 (a tool for querying user delay metrics), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'user delay metrics' entail, how results are structured, or any limitations (e.g., historical data availability). For a tool with no structured behavioral or output information, 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 itself (e.g., format: YYYY-MM-DD). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying a date range is required. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't enhance understanding of the parameters.

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 Teradata user delay metrics for a specified date range.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('Teradata user delay metrics'), and scope ('for a specified date range'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dba_sessionInfo' or 'dba_resusageSummary' which might also provide user-related metrics, leaving some ambiguity about uniqueness.

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 mentions a date range but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'dba_sessionInfo', 'dba_featureUsage'), there's no indication of how this tool differs in context or application, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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