Manticore Search MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure ('A dictionary containing column information'), but fails to explicitly state safety properties (read-only/non-destructive), error conditions (e.g., table not found), or idempotency.

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 uses a standard docstring format (Args/Returns) which is efficiently organized. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. While the Args/Returns format duplicates schema concepts, it is necessary here due to the zero-coverage schema.

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 single-parameter introspection tool, the description adequately covers the input parameter and return value structure. It appropriately compensates for the lack of schema descriptions. Minor gap: no mention of error handling for invalid table names.

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 0%, leaving the parameter completely undocumented in structured data. The description compensates effectively by defining table_name as 'The name of the table/index to describe', providing necessary semantic context.

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 opens with a precise verb ('Get') and resource ('schema of a specific table/index'), and specifies the system context ('Manticore Search'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings: list_tables (lists tables), run_query (executes queries), and documentation tools (retrieves docs).

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., using list_tables first to discover valid names) or when to prefer this over run_query for schema introspection.

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