MCP PostgreSQL Operations

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behaviors: it retrieves server version, displays connection settings with password masking, verifies accessibility, and checks extension status. It also specifies the return format. However, it doesn't mention potential errors, timeouts, or authentication requirements, leaving some gaps.

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], etc.), front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. It efficiently communicates necessary information in a organized manner.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is complete: it explains purpose, functionality, usage guidelines, prohibitions, and return values. With an output schema handling return details, the description provides all necessary context for an agent to use this tool effectively.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on functionality and use cases, which is correct for a parameterless tool.

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 'Check basic information and connection status of PostgreSQL server' with specific verbs ('retrieve', 'display', 'verify', 'check') and resources ('PostgreSQL server version', 'connection settings', 'server accessibility', 'extensions'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on basic server info rather than monitoring, statistics, or configuration details.

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 guidance with 'Required Use Cases' listing specific user requests and scenarios, and 'Strictly Prohibited Use Cases' detailing when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for data queries, performance stats, or admin tasks). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that handle those prohibited cases.

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