Boxtalk Data MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions pagination enforcement and returns a page of records, but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or what happens with invalid inputs (e.g., non-existent table). For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place by specifying pagination and return type, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating key behaviors).

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a read tool with full schema coverage. It covers the basic operation but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error cases or response format, which are important for a tool with 4 parameters and pagination complexity.

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 4 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain pagination logic or default behaviors further). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 verb ('Get paginated data') and resource ('from a SQL Server table'), specifying it returns a page of records with pagination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_table_count' (counts records) and 'get_table_structure' (schema info), but doesn't explicitly mention 'query_data' as an alternative for filtered queries.

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 implies usage for retrieving paginated table data, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'query_data' (which might allow filtering) or 'get_table_count' (for counts only). No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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