Run natural language queries against selected Presto tables in watsonx.data. Specify container, engine, and tables to retrieve data assets without writing SQL.
選択されたPrestoテーブルに対して自然言語クエリを実行します
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | 自然言語クエリ | |
| tables | Yes | クエリ対象のテーブルリスト | |
| container_id | Yes | コンテナID | |
| container_type | Yes | コンテナタイプ | |
| presto_engine_id | Yes | PrestoエンジンID | |
| presto_instance_crn | Yes | PrestoインスタンスCRN |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are required, whether the natural language is interpreted locally or remotely, or what the response contains. Only the basic action is described.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a minimal description, though it is arguably under-specified rather than over-concise.
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 6-parameter query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the natural language query returns, how results are structured, or any prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer everything beyond the purpose.
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 all six parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter formats, constraints, or relationships (e.g., tables must belong to the container). Baseline 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 states a specific verb (executes) and resource (natural language query against selected Presto tables), which distinguishes it from the document-oriented siblings (QUERY_DOCUMENT_LIBRARY, QUERY_DOCUMENT_SET). However, it does not differentiate from LIST_DATA_ASSETS or clarify what a 'data asset' is in this context.
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 when-to-use guidance is provided, no prerequisites are mentioned (e.g., needing a Presto instance or engine already configured), and no alternatives are suggested (e.g., listing assets first with LIST_DATA_ASSETS).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.