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. While 'Show' implies a read-only operation, the description does not confirm this explicitly, nor does it disclose what specific properties are returned (e.g., storage configuration, write options, user metadata), output format, or whether the operation is expensive for large tables.

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 four words. It wastes no words and front-loads the action and resource. However, given the lack of annotations and high sibling density, the extreme brevity leaves critical gaps that additional structured detail could have addressed without harming conciseness.

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?

With complete input schema coverage and an output schema present, the description meets minimum viability for a read-only metadata tool. However, given the crowded namespace of 20+ sibling 'show' commands with similar naming patterns, the description inadequately clarifies the distinct value of 'properties' versus 'describe' or 'stats', leaving contextual gaps for agent selection.

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 additional semantic context beyond the schema, such as expected naming conventions or case sensitivity rules for Iceberg identifiers. With full schema coverage, this meets the baseline expectation.

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 resource ('Iceberg table properties'), clearly indicating it displays configuration properties of Iceberg tables. It specifies the table format ('Iceberg'), adding necessary specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'describe_table' tool, which could confuse users about whether this returns schema metadata or configuration properties.

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 like 'describe_table' or 'show_create_table'. It does not mention prerequisites, permissions, or specific scenarios where properties inspection is preferred over other metadata queries.

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