MCP Vertica

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns 'View information as a string' but doesn't specify format, structure, or any behavioral traits like error handling, performance characteristics, or whether it's read-only (though implied by 'List'). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns. It uses minimal sentences to convey essential information without unnecessary elaboration, though the 'ctx' parameter documentation is somewhat vague ('FastMCP context for progress reporting and logging').

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains the parameter and return type but lacks details on output format, error conditions, or usage context relative to siblings. For a simple list tool, this is minimally viable but could be more complete.

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?

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'schema' by explaining it's the 'Schema name' with a default of 'public'. Since schema description coverage is 0% (the input schema only provides title and type without description), this compensates well by clarifying what the parameter represents and its default behavior.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'views in a schema', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_indexes' or 'get_table_structure', which might also list database objects.

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. There's no mention of when this tool is appropriate compared to sibling tools like 'list_indexes' or 'get_table_structure', nor any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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