MCP PostgreSQL Operations

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 what the tool does (retrieve and analyze configuration values), what information it displays (current value, description, changeability, restart requirements), and importantly specifies prohibited use cases that reveal behavioral constraints (no modifications, no restarts). The only minor gap is lack of explicit mention about permissions or rate limits.

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 with clear sections ([Tool Purpose], [Exact Functionality], [Required Use Cases], [Strictly Prohibited Use Cases], Args, Returns) and every sentence earns its place. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the Args/Returns into the structured sections rather than as separate elements, but overall it's efficiently organized.

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 complexity (configuration retrieval with filtering options), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description provides complete context. It covers purpose, functionality, use cases, prohibitions, parameter semantics, and return information - everything needed for an agent to understand and use this tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage (no descriptions in the input schema), the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters in detail: 'config_name: Specific configuration parameter name to retrieve (shows all configs if omitted)' and 'filter_text: Text to filter configuration names or descriptions (optional)'. It provides clear semantics beyond just parameter names, including default behavior when omitted.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose as 'Retrieve and analyze PostgreSQL server configuration parameter values' with specific verbs ('retrieve', 'analyze') and resource ('PostgreSQL server configuration parameters'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_server_info or get_database_stats by focusing specifically on configuration parameters rather than general server information or database statistics.

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 explicit 'Required Use Cases' (when user requests PostgreSQL config, checking specific values, searching for configurations, performance tuning) and 'Strictly Prohibited Use Cases' (configuration changes, restart/reload requests, system-level changes). This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, including what this tool should NOT be used for.

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