MariaDB 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 states the tool 'suggests' a query for manual execution, implying it's a read-only advisory function without side effects, but doesn't clarify aspects like whether it requires specific permissions, how suggestions are generated, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity, 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 the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the purpose of parameters, what the tool returns (e.g., a suggested query string or reasoning), or how it integrates with sibling tools. For a suggestion tool with undocumented inputs, more context is needed to be fully actionable.

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 input schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It doesn't explain what 'connection,' 'query,' or 'reason' mean, their expected formats, or how they influence the suggestion. For example, it's unclear if 'query' is an input to analyze or a placeholder for output. This fails to add meaningful semantics 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 states the tool 'suggests a query that should be executed manually,' which provides a basic purpose (suggesting queries) but is vague about what triggers the suggestion or how it differs from sibling tools like 'execute_select' or 'describe_table.' It doesn't specify the resource or context clearly, leaving ambiguity in its application.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'execute_select' for running queries or 'describe_table' for schema details. The description mentions 'should be executed manually,' implying a recommendation rather than execution, but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage.

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