Run a read-only SQLite query and verify results by asserting exact output or an expected substring.
Run a read-only sqlite query and assert exact output or expected substring.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| databasePath | Yes | ||
| expectedOutput | No | ||
| outputContains | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0-alpha.14Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'read-only', which is crucial, and indicates two assertion modes. However, it does not describe failure behavior, return format, or how the two assertion modes interact (e.g., precedence or exclusivity). This is a partial disclosure but leaves 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?
A single sentence that is front-loaded with the most important constraint ('read-only') and immediately communicates the dual assertion capability. Every word earns its place, with no fluff.
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?
For a tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too sparse. It omits parameter semantics, failure behavior, and usage context such as typical scenarios or prerequisite checks. An agent would need to infer a lot about how to correctly invoke this tool, especially regarding the two optional assertion parameters.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly maps 'exact output' to expectedOutput and 'expected substring' to outputContains, but it does not explain databasePath or query, nor clarify the relationship between the two optional parameters (e.g., whether they are mutually exclusive). The description adds minimal meaning beyond parameter names.
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 verb (run), resource (sqlite query), and the assertion behavior (exact output or substring). It distinguishes itself from sibling assert tools by naming the specific resource type, so an agent knows this is for SQLite queries and not API responses or screen content.
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. The resource type (SQLite) is implied by the name and description, but there is no mention of when to prefer this over other assert tools or any preconditions such as database availability or read-only access.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.