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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves metadata, implying a read-only operation, but fails to mention critical details like whether it requires specific database permissions, if it works on views or only tables, error handling for non-existent tables, or the format of the returned structure. This is inadequate 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get the structure/schema of a SQL Server table') and adds specific details without waste. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity of database operations and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., JSON, table-like structure), error conditions, or behavioral nuances like permissions. For a tool with no structured data to rely on, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, fully documenting the single 'table' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify syntax beyond 'can include schema' or mention case sensitivity). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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') and resource ('structure/schema of a SQL Server table') with specific details about what is retrieved ('column names, data types, and constraints'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_table_count' and 'get_table_data' by focusing on metadata rather than row counts or content. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'query_data', which could also return schema information, preventing a perfect score.

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 like 'get_table_data' or 'query_data'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., database connection, permissions) or exclusions (e.g., not for querying actual data). This leaves the agent with minimal direction for tool selection.

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