Keboola Explorer MCP Server

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 states the tool retrieves 'detailed information' but doesn't specify behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens if the table doesn't exist. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating the tool's action from the information retrieved.

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 moderate complexity (retrieving metadata for a specific table), no annotations, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, and output format, leaving gaps in completeness.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'table_id' documented as 'Unique ID of the table.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 with a specific verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific table'), including what information is retrieved ('DB identifier and column information'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_bucket_tables' or 'query_table', which prevents a perfect score.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from sibling tools such as 'list_bucket_tables' (which might list tables) or 'query_table' (which might query table data).

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