karte-datahub-mcp

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 that the tool retrieves metadata including column names, types, and descriptions, which implies a read-only operation. However, it doesn't cover aspects like error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or response format details beyond metadata. The description adds some context but lacks comprehensive behavioral traits.

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 and well-structured, consisting of two sentences that directly state the purpose and what is returned. There is no wasted language or redundancy, and it is front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence earns its place by adding clear 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?

Given the tool's complexity is low (0 parameters, read-only operation) and an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose and the type of metadata returned, which aligns with the output schema's role in detailing return values. However, it could be more complete by addressing usage context or behavioral aspects like error cases, but for a simple schema retrieval tool, it's adequate.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters, which is appropriate since none exist. It adds value by explaining what metadata is returned (column names, types, descriptions), compensating for the lack of parameter documentation. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the description provides useful output semantics.

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: 'KARTEイベントテーブルのスキーマを取得する' (Get the schema of the KARTE events table). It specifies the verb '取得する' (get/retrieve) and the resource 'スキーマ' (schema), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'query_karte_events' or 'execute_karte_sql', which might also involve schema-related operations indirectly.

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 what the tool does but doesn't specify scenarios for usage, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given sibling tools like 'count_karte_events' and 'query_karte_events', there's no indication of when schema retrieval is preferred over data querying or counting.

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