Appwrite 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 mentions the need for a pre-existing table, which is useful context, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: it doesn't specify what 'upsert' entails (e.g., how conflicts are resolved), doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second provides prerequisite guidance. It's front-loaded with the core function, and each sentence adds value without redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating usage notes, but it remains efficient and clear.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and a prerequisite but misses essential context: behavioral details (e.g., upsert mechanics, side effects), error scenarios, response structure, and differentiation from siblings. This makes it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (database_id, table_id, rows, transaction_id) with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying rows are JSON objects, which is already in the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting, but doesn't compensate with extra insights like format examples or constraints.

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: 'Create or update Rows.' This specifies the verb (create/update) and resource (Rows), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'tables_db_create_rows' or 'tables_db_update_rows' beyond the 'upsert' concept in the name, which is why it doesn't reach 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 some guidance by mentioning prerequisites: 'Before using this route, you should create a new table resource...' This implies a sequence of operations. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tables_db_create_row' or 'tables_db_update_row', and doesn't specify exclusions or detailed context for choosing upsert over create/update separately.

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