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 for behavioral disclosure. 'Drop' implies a destructive operation, but the description doesn't explicitly state this is irreversible, whether it requires specific permissions, what happens to queries using this view, or if there are confirmation prompts. The return value description ('A success message or an error message') is minimal and doesn't specify format or content.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return value sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the return value description could be more informative. The formatting with Args/Returns headers enhances readability.

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 destructive database operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like irreversibility, permissions needed, impact on dependent objects, or detailed error conditions. The agent lacks critical information to use this tool safely and effectively.

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 explicitly documents the single parameter (view_name) with its type and purpose, adding meaningful context beyond the schema's 0% description coverage. While it doesn't specify format requirements (e.g., case sensitivity, naming conventions) or provide examples, it successfully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 view'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like drop_table or drop_database, which have similar destructive operations on different database objects.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like drop_table or drop_database. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing to connect to a database first), consequences of dropping a view, or what happens to dependent objects. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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