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 mentions the tool 'analyze' and 'provide a summary', but does not specify whether this is a read-only operation, its performance impact, authentication requirements, or output format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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 core purpose stated first, followed by a clear 'Args' and 'Returns' section. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant information. However, the formatting with separate sections could be slightly more integrated for optimal 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (analyzing schema relationships), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage guidelines, and output specifics, leaving the agent with incomplete context for effective invocation.

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 for the single parameter 'db_schema' by stating it is the 'Schema name (default: "public")', which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's title 'Db Schema'. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensation is effective, though it could elaborate on schema naming conventions or restrictions.

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: 'Analyze the schema and provide a summary of tables, views, and relationships.' It uses specific verbs ('analyze', 'provide') and resources ('schema', 'tables, views, and relationships'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'describe_table' or 'get_table_relationships', which might offer overlapping functionality, so it falls short of 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. With siblings such as 'describe_table', 'get_table_relationships', 'list_tables', and 'list_views', there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage based on the tool name and description alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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