CockroachDB MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates databases but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether the operation is destructive (it likely is for existing data if overwritten), rate limits, or what happens on success versus error beyond generic messages. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The Args and Returns sections are structured but slightly verbose for a single parameter; every sentence earns its place by clarifying inputs and outputs efficiently.

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 complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, prerequisites, and doesn't leverage the context of sibling tools. For a database creation tool, this leaves the agent under-informed about critical usage aspects.

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 'database_name' by specifying it's the 'Name of the database to create,' which clarifies its role beyond the schema's basic type. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensates adequately, though it could detail constraints like naming rules.

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 as 'Enable the creation of new databases,' which is a specific verb (create) and resource (databases). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_databases' or 'drop_database' by focusing on creation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them in the description text itself.

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., needing to connect first), exclusions (e.g., not for existing databases), or comparisons to siblings like 'connect_database' or 'switch_database' for database management tasks.

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