MCP Trino 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. It only states 'Show' without clarifying what constitutes the history (snapshots? commits?), whether this is a read-only operation, or any performance implications of querying large table histories.

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 at five words, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no redundant or wasted text. However, it may be overly terse given the lack of annotations and the need for usage guidance.

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?

While the existence of an output schema means return values need not be described, the description lacks contextual depth given the absence of annotations. With multiple similar 'show' siblings available, additional context about what specific Iceberg metadata this exposes would improve completeness.

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 100% description coverage for all three parameters (catalog, schema_name, table). The description adds no parameter-specific context beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score for high-coverage schemas.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and clearly identifies the resource ('Iceberg table history/changelog'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like show_tables or show_catalogs by specifying 'history/changelog', though it could clarify the difference from show_snapshots or show_metadata_log_entries.

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 tool versus alternatives. Siblings like show_snapshots, show_metadata_log_entries, and show_refs likely overlap conceptually with 'history/changelog', but the description offers no criteria for selection.

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