CockroachDB MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions creating a connection pool (implying a persistent resource), it doesn't describe authentication requirements, error handling, connection limits, whether the pool is shared or per-invocation, or what happens on subsequent calls. For a tool with 9 required parameters and no 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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by organized parameter documentation. While comprehensive, every sentence serves a purpose - the first establishes the tool's function, and the parameter documentation is essential given the poor schema coverage. Some behavioral context could be added without sacrificing conciseness.

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 (9 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description does an excellent job with parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context about connection pooling, authentication, error handling, and relationship to sibling tools. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally explain return values more thoroughly than just 'A success message or an error message.'

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter documentation including data types, defaults, and explanations for all 9 parameters. It adds crucial context like default values, SSL mode options, and file path requirements that aren't in the schema.

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 specific action ('Connect to a CockroachDB database and create a connection pool'), identifies the resource (CockroachDB database), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'connect' (which appears to be a different connection tool) and 'switch_database' (which changes an existing connection rather than creating one).

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 like 'connect' or 'switch_database', nor does it mention prerequisites or appropriate contexts for establishing a database connection. It simply states what the tool does without usage context.

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