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 tool lists tables, implying a read-only operation, but does not mention potential side effects, permissions needed, rate limits, or error handling. It adds some context about being 'invaluable for AI' but lacks operational details.

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 with the core purpose in the first sentence. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are structured but slightly verbose; the second sentence ('This is invaluable...') adds value but could be more concise. Overall, it earns its place with minimal waste.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose, parameter, and return value adequately. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., structure of the list) and error cases, which would enhance completeness for a database tool.

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 fully documents the single parameter (db_schema), including its type (str), default value ('public'), and purpose ('Schema name'), adding essential meaning beyond the bare input schema. This effectively covers the parameter semantics.

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 specific action ('List all tables') and resource ('connected Cockroach database instance'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_databases, list_views, describe_table, and get_table_relationships. It explicitly mentions the database type and scope, providing precise differentiation.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('to understand the database's landscape and identify relevant data sources'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives. It implies usage for exploration without detailing exclusions or comparisons to similar tools like list_views.

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