Databento MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by detailing what information is returned (e.g., server uptime, cache statistics, API usage metrics), which helps the agent understand the tool's output. However, it lacks critical behavioral details such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 a clear purpose statement, a bulleted list of returns, and an example. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the key information presented first. Every sentence earns its place, though the example could be slightly more informative (e.g., noting it takes no arguments).

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 (retrieving multiple status metrics) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It details what information is returned, which is helpful, but lacks specifics on output format, error handling, or behavioral constraints. This leaves the agent with incomplete context for reliable tool 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description compensates by implying no parameters are needed through the example 'get_account_status()' and by not mentioning any inputs. This effectively adds semantic clarity beyond the schema, though it could be more explicit about the lack of parameters.

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 tool's purpose as retrieving 'comprehensive server status and account information' with specific components listed. It uses the verb 'Get' with the resource 'server status and account information', making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'health_check' or 'get_metrics', which likely serve related but distinct purposes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions using it 'for a full server overview' but doesn't clarify how this differs from other status-related tools in the sibling list, such as 'health_check' or 'get_metrics'. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent to infer context.

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