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 creates a view and returns a success/error message, but lacks critical details: whether this is a write operation (implied by 'Create'), what permissions are required, if it affects existing data, error conditions, or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 and concise. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by organized sections for 'Args' and 'Returns,' with each parameter briefly explained. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the formatting enhances readability. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 2 parameters and no complex behaviors to document.

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 write operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but misses behavioral details like permissions, error handling, or interaction with siblings (e.g., 'drop_view'). For a mutation tool, this leaves the agent with incomplete context, though the parameter explanations help offset some 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 semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'view_name' is the 'Name of the view' and 'query' is the 'SQL query for the view definition,' clarifying their roles. With only 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, this compensates well, though it could detail constraints (e.g., SQL syntax requirements). The baseline for 0 params would be 4, so this is appropriate.

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: 'Create a view from a specific query.' It specifies the verb ('Create') and resource ('a view'), and while it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'create_table' or 'execute_query', the mention of 'view' and 'SQL query' provides enough context to infer its distinct function. However, it lacks explicit sibling differentiation, preventing a perfect score.

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 an existing database connection), compare it to similar tools like 'create_table' or 'execute_query', or specify use cases (e.g., for reusable query results). Without any usage context, the agent must infer this from the tool name and parameters alone.

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