SQLite Project Memory MCP

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose permissions needed, rate limits, whether it's read-only or mutative, or how results are returned (e.g., pagination). The mention of 'generic reporting' hints at read-only use but is insufficient for a tool with potential data access implications.

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 front-loads the core action ('Query a named SQL view') and adds purpose ('for generic reporting and model projections') without redundancy. Every word contributes value, making it appropriately sized.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits and parameter usage, though the output schema may mitigate return value explanations. For a query tool with data access, more context on safety and constraints is needed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but only partially does. It explains that 'view_name' refers to a 'named SQL view' and 'params' are for the query, adding some meaning beyond the schema's generic titles. However, it doesn't detail param formats or constraints, leaving gaps for the two 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 verb ('query') and resource ('named SQL view'), specifying it's for 'generic reporting and model projections'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'run_read_query' by focusing on views rather than arbitrary queries, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_read_query' or 'list_views' is provided. The phrase 'generic reporting and model projections' implies a context but doesn't define boundaries or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.

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