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. It states the tool is for 'getting' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, how it handles large schemas, potential rate limits, or the format of the returned data. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond its basic purpose.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized: it starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by separate 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. However, the 'Returns' section is somewhat vague ('List all relationships...'), and there's minor room for tightening, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded.

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 minimally adequate. It covers the purpose, parameter usage, and output scope, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions or data format. Without annotations or output schema, more context on what the return data looks like would improve completeness, but it meets basic requirements for a read operation.

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 includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter 'table_name' as optional, with a default of None, and a 'Returns' section that clarifies the output scope. However, schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by providing this parameter info. It adds meaning by explaining the optional nature and effect on output, but doesn't detail data types or constraints beyond what's implied, earning a baseline score.

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 foreign key relationships for a table or all tables.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('foreign key relationships'), and distinguishes the scope (specific table vs. all tables). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'describe_table' or 'analyze_schema', which might also provide relationship information, so it's not a perfect 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?

The description provides minimal guidance: it mentions that the tool can be used for a specific table or all tables, but offers no explicit advice on when to use it versus alternatives like 'describe_table' or 'analyze_schema'. There's no mention of prerequisites, performance implications, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with little contextual direction.

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