Manticore Search MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It effectively communicates the default read-only safety behavior, the mechanism for enabling write access (environment variable), and documents the return structure (dictionary with columns/rows/total). It lacks mention of error handling or rate limits, preventing a perfect score.

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 efficiently structured with clear docstring-style sections (Args, Returns). The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by critical behavioral constraints, then parameter details. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

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 single-parameter simplicity but behavioral complexity (read-only vs. write modes), the description is complete. It covers invocation requirements, parameter semantics, execution behavior, and return values, providing sufficient context for correct agent operation despite the lack of annotations.

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%, requiring the description to fully compensate. It successfully adds semantic meaning by documenting the 'query' parameter as 'The SQL query to execute' and provides a concrete example ('SELECT * FROM my_index LIMIT 10'), effectively bridging the schema documentation gap.

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 'Execute a SQL query against Manticore Search,' providing a specific verb (Execute), resource (SQL query), and target system (Manticore Search). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like describe_table and list_tables, which handle metadata rather than execution.

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 explicit usage constraints regarding read-only mode by default and the MANTICORE_ALLOW_WRITE_ACCESS environment variable requirement for DDL/DML. However, it does not explicitly differentiate when to use this tool versus sibling introspection tools like describe_table, though the behavioral guidance for write operations is strong.

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