MySQL MCP Server (Optimized)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Executa uma query SQL' implies write capability for non-SELECT queries, it doesn't specify permissions required, whether transactions are supported, potential side effects, or error handling. For a database mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately sized for a straightforward tool and gets directly to the point 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?

For a database query execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address critical context like what types of queries are supported (SELECT/INSERT/UPDATE), result format, error conditions, or security considerations. The agent would have significant gaps in understanding how to use this tool effectively.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain query syntax requirements, database connection behavior, or parameter interactions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Executa uma query SQL') and target resource ('no banco MySQL'), providing specific verb+resource information. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'describe_table' or explain how this general query execution differs from more specific operations.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or limitations. There's no mention of the sibling tool 'describe_table' or any context about appropriate use cases for general SQL execution versus table inspection.

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