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 mentions that the tool creates a connection pool and returns a success or error message, but it lacks critical details such as whether this is a one-time initialization step, if it requires specific permissions, what happens on repeated calls, or any side effects like resource consumption. This is inadequate for a tool that likely establishes a persistent state.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core action and the second detailing the return values. There's no wasted text, and it efficiently communicates essential information in two sentences, though it could be slightly more structured by separating behavioral notes.

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 complexity of a database connection tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the significance of the connection pool, how it interacts with other tools (e.g., whether it's required before queries), or what the success/error messages entail. This leaves gaps for an agent to understand the tool's role in the broader context.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it appropriately focuses on the action and return values. A baseline of 4 is justified as it compensates for the lack of parameters by describing the operation clearly.

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 action ('Connect to the default CockroachDB database and create a connection pool') and the resource ('default CockroachDB database'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'connect_database', which appears to be a similar connection-related tool, leaving some ambiguity about when to use one versus the other.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether it should be called first before other operations), exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'connect_database', leaving the agent to infer usage context solely from the tool name and description.

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