MCP MySQL Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation but doesn't mention whether it requires specific permissions, what happens if the table already exists, whether it's transactional/reversible, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool description and front-loads the essential information.

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?

For a database mutation tool with 3 parameters, 33% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, dependencies on other tools (like 'connect_db'), or how parameters interact. The agent would struggle to use this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is only 33% (only the 'table' parameter has a description), leaving 'fields' and 'indexes' undocumented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's implied by the tool name, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage. The agent must infer parameter meanings from the schema structure alone.

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 ('Create') and resource ('new table in the database'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_column' or 'execute' which might also involve table creation operations, so it doesn't achieve full sibling differentiation.

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 like 'add_column' for modifying existing tables or 'execute' for running SQL commands. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., database connection) or typical use cases, leaving the agent with minimal contextual direction.

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