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 this is a 'List' operation which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the schema doesn't exist, whether results are paginated, or what format the output takes. For a database tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 well-structured with clear sections for the main description, arguments, and returns. The first sentence states the core purpose clearly. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be more efficiently integrated, and the returns statement is somewhat redundant with the main description.

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 this is a database metadata tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what information is returned about each view, how results are formatted, whether there are permission requirements, or what happens with non-existent schemas. For a tool that interacts with database system catalogs, more 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 minimal value beyond what the input schema provides. The schema shows db_schema is a string with default 'public', and the description merely restates this with 'Schema name (default: "public")'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't compensate by explaining what a schema is, what valid values are, or providing examples. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is higher than for multi-parameter tools.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all views in a schema'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_tables or list_databases by specifying 'views' rather than other database objects. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other view-related tools like create_view or drop_view, which keeps it from 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. It doesn't mention when you'd want to list views versus tables, or how this differs from other metadata tools like analyze_schema or describe_table. There's no context about prerequisites or when this operation is appropriate.

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