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 states the action ('Drop') which implies a destructive mutation, but fails to mention critical behaviors: irreversible data loss, permission requirements, or impact on dependent objects. This is inadequate for a high-risk operation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the irreversible consequences, error conditions, or return format beyond 'success or error message'. Given the high risk and lack of structured safety hints, more context is needed.

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 context for the single parameter by specifying it's the 'Name of the database to drop', which clarifies the semantics beyond the schema's generic 'Database Name' title. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensates adequately, though it doesn't detail format constraints.

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 verb ('Drop') and resource ('an existing database'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'drop_table' or 'drop_view' by specifying database-level deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'create_database' in terms of destructive nature, which would require a 5.

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 like 'drop_table' or 'list_databases'. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., database must exist, no active connections) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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