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 mentions that the tool returns 'the connection status or an error message', which hints at read-only behavior but doesn't explicitly state it. It fails to address critical aspects like whether this requires authentication, potential rate limits, or what specific details are included in the status, making it insufficient for a mutation-free tool.

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 brief and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence and additional return information in the second. There's no wasted text, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the return details more seamlessly.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does and what it returns, but lacks depth on behavioral context (e.g., error conditions, format of status details) that would be helpful for an agent, especially with no annotations to fill gaps.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The description appropriately avoids redundant information, earning a high baseline score for this dimension.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current connection status and details'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_active_connections' or 'get_cluster_status', which prevents a perfect score.

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 like 'get_active_connections' or 'get_cluster_status'. It lacks any context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on 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.