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 the tool is for getting status information, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, or what 'replication and distribution status' entails (e.g., latency, errors, progress). The description lacks details on response format, pagination, or potential side effects, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 main purpose stated first. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are structured but slightly redundant with the opening sentence. Every sentence adds value, though it could be more streamlined (e.g., integrating the default behavior into the main description).

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 complexity (a status-checking tool with 1 parameter, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and return intent, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., what 'Details about range replication' includes) and output specifics. Without an output schema, more elaboration on return values would be beneficial, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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 meaningful context beyond the input schema. The schema has 0% description coverage, with only a parameter name and type. The description explains that 'table_name' is used to filter and defaults to an empty string for 'all tables', clarifying its purpose and default behavior. This compensates well for the low schema coverage, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., case sensitivity).

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 replication and distribution status for a table or the whole database.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('replication and distribution status'), and scope ('table or the whole database'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_cluster_status' or 'get_connection_status', which reduces it from 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 minimal usage guidance. It mentions that the tool can be used for 'a table or the whole database' and that 'table_name' defaults to 'all tables', but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_cluster_status' or 'get_connection_status'. No explicit when/when-not scenarios or prerequisites are provided.

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