MariaDB MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool lists tables but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it returns all tables or paginated results, what format the output is in, if it requires specific permissions, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks essential operational context for a tool with parameters.

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. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy 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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, output format, or behavioral aspects like error handling or dependencies. For a tool with two parameters and sibling tools, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 description must compensate. It mentions 'selected connection' which relates to the 'connection' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'database' parameter or provide any details on parameter usage, such as what 'local' means for the connection enum or how the database parameter affects the listing. The description adds minimal value beyond the bare schema.

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 ('tables'), specifying it's for the selected connection. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_connections and list_databases by focusing on tables rather than connections or databases. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from describe_table which describes a specific table versus listing all tables.

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 implies usage context ('for the selected connection'), suggesting it should be used when a connection is established. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like list_databases (which might list databases first) or describe_table (for detailed table info). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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