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 describes the tool's function but lacks behavioral details such as whether it's read-only, potential error conditions (e.g., if table doesn't exist), authentication needs, or rate limits. The description doesn't contradict annotations, but it's insufficient for a mutation-free 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The Args and Returns sections are structured but slightly verbose; every sentence earns its place by adding value, though it could be more concise by integrating the explanatory sentence into the main description.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides basic parameter semantics and return value overview but lacks details on output structure, error handling, or behavioral traits. It's minimally adequate for a read-only metadata tool but has clear gaps in completeness.

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 adds meaning by explaining table_name ('Name of the table') and db_schema ('Schema name (default: "public")'), which clarifies parameter roles beyond the schema's basic titles. However, it doesn't detail format constraints or examples for these parameters.

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 with specific verbs ('provide detailed schema information') and resources ('for a specified table'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_tables (which lists tables) or get_table_relationships (which focuses on relationships). It explicitly mentions what metadata is provided (column definitions, data types, constraints, indexes).

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 implies usage context ('allows the AI to accurately interpret table structures and formulate precise queries'), suggesting when this tool is useful, but doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like analyze_schema or get_table_relationships. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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