db4app Todo 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 'removes' a todo item, implying a destructive mutation, but fails to mention critical aspects like authentication needs (implied by 'authToken' parameter), database dependencies, or potential side effects (e.g., permanent deletion). This leaves significant gaps for safe agent operation.

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 concise with two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the second sentence ('Provide the todo ID') is somewhat redundant given the schema's clear documentation, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 complexity (destructive mutation with 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address authentication, database connections, error handling, or return values, leaving the agent under-informed for reliable invocation in a real-world context.

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 the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description adds minimal value by specifying 'Provide the todo ID' for the required parameter, but doesn't explain the semantics of optional parameters like 'postgresUrl' or 'authToken', nor does it clarify their interrelationships. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Remove a todo item') and resource ('from the list'), which is specific and actionable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_todo' and 'list_todos' by focusing on deletion, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'mark_as_done' for task completion alternatives.

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 clear context for usage ('when the user wants to delete a task'), which helps guide the agent. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives (e.g., when not to use vs. 'mark_as_done'), and no prerequisites are mentioned despite multiple optional parameters in the schema.

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