MCP Hub

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses what information is returned (columns, types, constraints, defaults) but fails to mention safety characteristics (read-only), authentication requirements, rate limits, or the return format structure. The word 'Get' implies safety but this isn't explicit.

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?

Single sentence structure is appropriately concise and front-loaded. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata noise but doesn't significantly impede readability. Every word conveys relevant information about the tool's function.

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 three undocumented parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It adequately explains the tool's purpose but omits critical parameter semantics and return structure details necessary for correct invocation without external documentation.

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%, requiring the description to compensate. It fails to explain any of the three parameters: 'site' (Supabase project identifier?), 'table' (table name), or 'schema' (Postgres schema name). Critically, it doesn't clarify that the 'schema' parameter is a namespace identifier defaulting to 'public', distinct from the 'schema information' being retrieved.

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 retrieves 'detailed schema information for a table' and lists specific outputs (columns, data types, constraints, defaults). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from specialized siblings like 'supabase_get_table_constraints' or clarify that 'schema information' refers to table structure rather than the Postgres schema namespace.

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 guidance provided on when to use this comprehensive schema tool versus specialized alternatives (supabase_get_table_constraints, supabase_get_table_indexes). No prerequisites or authentication requirements are mentioned despite the tool accessing database metadata.

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