Retrieve BSG SQL standardization rules filtered by object type or topic to validate SQL objects against BSG Institute standards.
Retrieves BSG SQL standardization rules, optionally filtered by object type and/or topic.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | No | Filter rules by topic category | |
| object_type | No | Filter rules by SQL object type |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'Retrieves' (read operation) but doesn't state whether results are cached, paginated, or exhaustive, nor what 'all' returns. For a rules-lookup tool with zero annotation coverage, this is sparse.
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 zero waste. Verb and resource lead, and the optional filtering is mentioned last. No filler.
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 no-annotation, no-output-schema tool in a crowded sibling set, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain the return shape (list of rules?), whether 'topic=all' is the default without filters, or how results should be interpreted. More context is needed to call it confidently.
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 100% with enums and per-parameter descriptions, so the schema fully documents both filters. The description only adds 'optionally filtered by object type and/or topic', which is already implied by optional required=[] and the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 applies since the 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?
States a specific verb (Retrieves) and resource (BSG SQL standardization rules). The purpose is clear, but it doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like check_performance_patterns or validate_object_name, which also concern rules/standards. A reader can understand what it does but not precisely why it's different from adjacent tools.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The optional filtering is mentioned, but there's no context about when an agent should call this versus the many validation and generation siblings. The description offers no routing logic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.