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. While it mentions what the tool returns ('connection status or an error message'), it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, what format the status information comes in, whether it's a real-time snapshot or cached data, or any rate limits or side effects.

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 concise with two sentences that directly address purpose and return value. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose first, followed by return information. There's minimal waste, though the 'Returns:' section could be integrated more smoothly.

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 has no parameters (simplifying the context) but also has no output schema and no annotations, the description provides basic information about what the tool does and what it returns. However, for a status-checking tool in what appears to be a database/server context, more detail about what 'connection status and details' includes would be helpful, especially without an output schema to define the return structure.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, earning a baseline 4 for not adding unnecessary information about non-existent parameters.

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 with 'Get the current connection status and details' - a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('connection status and details'). However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_active_connections' or 'get_cluster_status', which appear related but have different scopes.

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. With sibling tools like 'get_active_connections', 'get_cluster_status', and 'get_replication_status' that seem related to connection monitoring, there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate versus those alternatives.

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