CockroachDB MCP 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 states the tool analyzes and provides a summary, implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify permissions needed, potential side effects, rate limits, or output format details. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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 appropriately concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first in a single sentence. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are structured clearly, though the 'Returns' section is somewhat vague ('Summary and details'). Overall, it avoids redundancy and maintains focus on essential 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 moderate complexity (analyzing schema relationships), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics but lacks details on output format, error handling, and behavioral traits. With richer context needed for effective use, it meets baseline completeness but has clear gaps.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'db_schema' by specifying its default value ('public') and indicating it's the schema name to analyze. With 0% schema description coverage (the schema only lists type and title), the description compensates well by clarifying the parameter's role and default, though it could elaborate on allowed values or constraints.

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: 'Analyze the schema and provide a summary of tables, views, and relationships.' This specifies the verb ('analyze'), resource ('schema'), and output ('summary of tables, views, and relationships'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'list_tables', 'list_views', or 'get_table_relationships', which reduces clarity on when to choose this tool over those alternatives.

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 sibling tools such as 'list_tables', 'list_views', or 'get_table_relationships'. It mentions the default schema 'public' but does not specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage. This lack of comparative guidance leaves the agent uncertain about tool selection in a crowded namespace.

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