Excel Analytics 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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: the operation is read-only (implying no data modification), restricts query types to SELECT (preventing mutations), and implies database interaction. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like query timeouts, result size limits, or authentication requirements.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core purpose, the second adds critical restriction. It's front-loaded with essential information and contains zero wasted words.

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 (SQL execution), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core purpose, restrictions, and basic usage context. However, for a database query tool, additional context about result formats, error handling, or connection details would be helpful.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds some context by implying the 'sql' parameter should contain a SELECT query, but doesn't specify syntax requirements, supported SQL dialects, or parameterization options. This provides basic meaning but leaves significant gaps.

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 with specific verb ('run') and resource ('SQL query against the database'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying 'read-only' and 'Only SELECT queries allowed', which differentiates it from mutation tools like create_tool or delete_tool.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('run a read-only SQL query') and when not to use it ('Only SELECT queries allowed'), providing clear alternatives for other operations (e.g., use create_tool for INSERT, delete_tool for DELETE). This gives the agent precise guidance on tool selection.

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