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 mentions the action ('create a connection pool') and return values ('success message or error message'), but lacks critical details: whether this is a one-time setup, if it requires authentication, potential side effects (e.g., resource allocation), or error conditions. For a connection tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the purpose, and the second clarifies the return values. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy. It could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the return info, but it's efficient overall.

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 complexity (establishing a database connection) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'default CockroachDB database' means, how the connection pool behaves, or what the success/error messages contain. For a foundational tool in a database management context, more detail is needed to ensure safe and effective use.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing on the tool's action. A baseline of 4 is applied for zero-parameter tools, as there's nothing to compensate for.

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: 'Connect to the default CockroachDB database and create a connection pool.' It specifies the verb ('connect'), resource ('default CockroachDB database'), and action ('create a connection pool'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'connect_database', which appears to be a similar connection tool, leaving some ambiguity.

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 prerequisites (e.g., whether a connection must be established before other operations), compare it to 'connect_database', or specify when not to use it (e.g., for non-default databases). This lack of context makes it unclear how this tool fits into the workflow.

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