MCP Trino Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description fails to disclose performance characteristics, whether system tables are included, or what the output schema contains.

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?

Extremely concise at six words with the action front-loaded. However, given the rich ecosystem of 20+ sibling tools and lack of annotations, the brevity may be excessive rather than efficient.

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?

Adequate for a simple listing tool with full schema coverage and an output schema present, but lacks contextual guidance about the catalog/schema hierarchy and relationships to sibling discovery tools that would help an agent navigate the metadata tree effectively.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description mentions 'in a schema' which loosely maps to the schema_name parameter, but adds no semantic details about the catalog parameter or parameter relationships beyond the schema definition.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (tables) with scope (in a schema). However, it omits the catalog hierarchy context despite requiring a 'catalog' parameter, which would help distinguish from sibling tools like show_schemas or show_catalogs.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like show_schemas or describe_table, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing valid catalog/schema names first.

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