CockroachDB MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that this is a write operation ('import data into'), mentions supported protocols, and hints at batch processing ('bulk'), but lacks details about permissions required, rate limits, transaction behavior, error handling, or what constitutes 'success' beyond a generic message.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence followed by categorized sections (Args, Returns, Example). It's appropriately sized for a 5-parameter tool, though the example could be more concise. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

For a data import tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate basics but lacks depth. It covers what the tool does and parameter meanings, but misses important contextual details like authentication requirements for cloud storage, file size limits, import behavior (append/replace), and specific error scenarios.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantic meaning for all 5 parameters: table_name identifies the target, file_url specifies the source with protocol examples, format defines allowed values, delimiter explains CSV-specific behavior, and skip_header clarifies header handling. Default values are also documented, though not all parameter constraints are fully detailed.

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 specific action ('bulk import data into a table'), the resource ('table'), and the source ('from a file stored in cloud or web storage'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_table or execute_query by focusing on data ingestion rather than schema manipulation or query execution.

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 implies usage context by specifying supported file formats and storage locations, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like execute_query for data insertion or when not to use it (e.g., for small datasets). No sibling tool comparisons or exclusions are provided.

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