FDEP MCP Server

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 it mentions executing SQL queries with parameters, it doesn't cover important aspects like: what type of SQL is supported (e.g., SELECT only or also DML), whether queries are read-only or can modify data, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or result format. The description is too minimal for a potentially powerful database query tool.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently includes the parameter capability. Every word earns its place.

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 that executes custom SQL queries (potentially powerful and risky), the description is inadequate. With no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools offering similar query functionality, the description should provide more context about limitations, safety considerations, and differentiation from alternatives. The current description leaves too many important questions unanswered.

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 all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'with parameters' which aligns with the schema's 'parameters' field, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter syntax, best practices, or limitations beyond what the schema already specifies.

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 ('Execute custom SQL queries') and target resource ('on the code database'), specifying the verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'execute_query' or 'execute_advanced_query', which appear to offer similar functionality based on their names.

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 like 'execute_query' or 'execute_advanced_query' from the sibling list. It mentions 'with parameters' but doesn't explain when parameterized queries are needed or what distinguishes this tool from other query execution options.

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