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 'creates' new databases, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the database already exists, or any rate limits. The mention of returning 'A success message or an error message' adds minimal value beyond the obvious.

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 well-structured. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by dedicated sections for 'Args' and 'Returns' that are easy to parse. There's no unnecessary verbosity, and every sentence adds value (e.g., the returns section clarifies output expectations).

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 (a write operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details (e.g., permissions, idempotency) and doesn't fully explain the return values beyond generic 'success/error message.' For a mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps for the agent to navigate.

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 semantics for the single parameter: 'database_name (str): Name of the database to create.' This clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond what the schema provides (which has 0% description coverage and only shows the parameter name and type). With only one parameter, the description adequately compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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: 'Enable the creation of new databases.' It specifies the verb ('creation') and resource ('databases'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'connect_database' or 'list_databases' beyond the obvious creation vs. connection/listing distinction.

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., needing admin permissions), when not to use it (e.g., if a database already exists), or refer to sibling tools like 'connect_database' for existing databases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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