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 returns 'Details about the cluster's status and how nodes/ranges are distributed or an error message,' which implies it's a read-only operation that may fail. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, side effects, or error conditions, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by parameter and return sections. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. Minor improvements could include front-loading key behavioral details, but overall it's efficient and readable.

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 moderate complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics but lacks usage guidelines, detailed behavioral context, and output specifics. It meets basic needs but leaves the agent to infer important aspects like error handling or when to use alternatives.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for the single parameter: 'detailed (bool): If True, returns all node details. If False, returns summary info.' This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, explaining what the parameter controls and its impact on output. However, it doesn't cover edge cases or default behavior explicitly.

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: 'Get cluster health and node distribution.' It uses specific verbs ('Get') and resources ('cluster health', 'node distribution'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_replication_status' or 'get_active_connections', which prevents 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 sibling tools like 'get_replication_status' or 'get_active_connections', nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts where this tool is appropriate. The only usage hint is the parameter description, which isn't sufficient for tool selection.

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