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. It states the action is 'Drop' (implying destructive mutation) but doesn't describe critical behaviors: whether this is irreversible, what permissions are required, if it affects dependent objects, or what happens on success/failure beyond generic 'message' returns. This leaves significant gaps for a destructive 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 appropriately brief and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args/Returns sections are structured but somewhat redundant with the schema (though helpful given 0% schema coverage). No unnecessary verbiage, though the Returns section could be more specific.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the irreversible nature, permission requirements, error conditions, or what 'success message' contains. Given the complexity and risk of dropping database objects, more behavioral 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 'view_name' by specifying it's 'Name of the view to drop', which clarifies the parameter's role beyond the schema's basic 'View Name' title. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this adequately compensates, though it doesn't explain format constraints (e.g., case sensitivity, naming conventions).

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 action ('Drop') and target resource ('an existing view'), providing specific verb+resource pairing. It distinguishes from siblings like 'drop_table' and 'drop_database' by specifying the view resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., doesn't mention when to use vs 'drop_table').

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., view must exist), when-not scenarios (e.g., irreversible destruction), or explicit alternatives among siblings like 'drop_table' or 'drop_database'. The agent receives no contextual usage instructions.

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