MariaDB MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the action but doesn't disclose traits like read-only nature (implied by 'Lists'), potential permissions needed, output format, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate, though not misleading.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output format, error cases, or behavioral constraints, which are crucial for an agent to use it correctly. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for reliable invocation.

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%, but the description adds context by explaining that the 'connection' parameter selects which connection to list databases for. However, it doesn't detail the enum value 'local' or provide examples. With one parameter and some added meaning, it meets the baseline but doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 action ('Lists') and resource ('databases'), specifying the scope ('for the selected connection'). It distinguishes from siblings like list_tables (tables vs databases) and list_connections (connections vs databases). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other database-related tools, keeping 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage when needing database listings for a connection, but it doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare with siblings like describe_table or suggest_query. This leaves the agent without clear contextual boundaries.

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