MCP MySQL 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. 'Execute a SELECT query' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't clarify permissions required, potential side effects (e.g., locking), rate limits, or error handling. For a tool with database access and no annotations, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 extremely concise—a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly. There is no wasted verbiage or structural complexity.

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 database queries and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address return values (e.g., result format, pagination), error conditions, or security considerations (e.g., SQL injection risks). For a tool with significant behavioral implications, more context is needed to guide safe and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for both parameters ('sql' and optional 'params'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as SQL dialect support or placeholder syntax details. However, with high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately covers parameter meaning.

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 'Execute a SELECT query' clearly states the action (execute) and resource (SELECT query), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'execute' (which might handle non-SELECT queries) and 'describe_table' (metadata operations). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, such as 'add_column' or 'create_table', which are DDL operations.

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 when to choose 'query' over 'execute' (if 'execute' handles other query types), nor does it specify prerequisites like needing an established database connection. Without such context, users must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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