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 drops a database, implying a destructive, irreversible mutation, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify permissions required, whether it's synchronous/asynchronous, what happens to dependent objects (e.g., tables, views), or error conditions (e.g., if the database doesn't exist or is in use). The mention of 'A success message or an error message' is vague and doesn't describe output behavior meaningfully.

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, with the core purpose stated first ('Drop an existing database'). The Args and Returns sections are structured but slightly verbose for a single parameter; however, every sentence serves a purpose, and there's no redundant 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 high complexity (destructive database operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses critical context: behavioral details like irreversibility, dependencies, and error handling, which are essential for safe agent invocation. The return value description is too vague to be helpful.

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 minimal semantics beyond the input schema. It documents the single parameter 'database_name' and its type, but with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't compensate by explaining format constraints (e.g., naming rules, case sensitivity) or providing examples. The baseline is 3 because the schema lacks descriptions, but the tool description doesn't fully address the gap.

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 ('Drop') and resource ('an existing database'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_database' and 'list_databases' by specifying deletion rather than creation or listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other destructive operations like 'drop_table' or 'drop_view' beyond the resource type.

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., requiring an existing database), exclusions (e.g., not for tables/views), or sibling tools like 'drop_table' or 'drop_view' for related operations. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context alone.

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