CockroachDB MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns 'Details about range replication' but doesn't specify what those details include (e.g., replication lag, distribution metrics), whether it's a read-only operation, potential performance impacts, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no 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: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. There's minimal waste, though the Returns section could be slightly more informative. The structure aids readability without unnecessary verbosity.

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 moderate complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameter usage adequately but lacks details on return values (beyond vague 'Details'), behavioral traits, and error handling. For a status-checking tool with no structured output, more context on what to expect would improve 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics: it explains that table_name is a filter (default: '' for all tables) and clarifies its role in scoping the query to a specific table or the entire database. This goes beyond the bare schema, providing essential context for the single parameter.

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: 'Get replication and distribution status for a table or the whole database.' It uses specific verbs ('Get', 'filter') and identifies the resource ('table', 'database'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_cluster_status or get_connection_status. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as get_table_relationships, which might also involve table metadata.

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 through the Args section, stating that table_name filters results (default: '' for all tables). It provides some context for when to use the tool (to check replication status) but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like get_cluster_status or get_active_connections, and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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