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 that the tool retrieves settings and returns 'All cluster settings,' but it doesn't mention critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, potential rate limits, or what format the return data is in. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior fully.

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 very concise and well-structured, consisting of just two sentences that clearly state the action and the return value. There is no wasted language, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 that the tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose and return scope, which is adequate for a simple retrieval tool. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or data format, which could be important for an agent to use it correctly in context with its siblings.

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, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids unnecessary details, earning a baseline score of 4 for this dimension.

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 a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('current database or cluster settings'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get_cluster_status' or 'get_connection_status', which might also retrieve status-related information.

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 siblings like 'get_cluster_status' and 'get_connection_status' that might overlap in retrieving status or settings, there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate or what distinguishes it from those options.

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