CockroachDB MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool creates a view and returns a success/error message, but lacks critical behavioral details such as permissions required, whether it's idempotent, if it overwrites existing views, or any rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 brief purpose statement followed by clear sections for Args and Returns. It's front-loaded and avoids unnecessary details, though the Returns section could be more specific (e.g., mentioning what the success message contains).

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool with behavioral gaps, the description is incomplete. It covers parameters well but fails to address critical context like error conditions, side effects, or integration with sibling tools (e.g., connect_database prerequisite), making it insufficient for 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains both parameters: view_name as the name of the view and query as the SQL query for the view definition, adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. With 0% coverage and 2 parameters, this is strong compensation.

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 creates a view from a SQL query, specifying both the verb ('create') and resource ('view'). It distinguishes from siblings like create_table or create_database by focusing on views, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from drop_view or list_views beyond the action type.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like needing an existing database connection, nor does it clarify when to use create_view versus execute_query for similar operations, leaving usage context implied but unspecified.

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