Boxtalk Data MCP Server

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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: the tool enforces pagination, restricts to SELECT queries only, and rejects DDL/DML operations. However, it doesn't mention other potential behaviors like error handling, timeout limits, or authentication requirements, leaving some gaps.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with essential information in just two sentences. Every word earns its place: the first sentence states purpose and key constraint, the second clarifies allowed/rejected operations. No wasted words or 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does well on purpose and usage but has gaps. It doesn't describe the return format (e.g., result set structure), error responses, or other behavioral aspects like rate limits. For a query execution tool with 3 parameters, this is adequate but incomplete.

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 already fully documents all three parameters (query, page, pageSize). The description adds some context by mentioning 'enforced pagination' and the SELECT-only restriction, but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Execute a SELECT query') and resource ('SQL Server database') with explicit constraints ('with enforced pagination', 'Only SELECT queries are allowed'). It distinguishes from potential siblings by emphasizing the query execution nature versus table-specific operations like get_table_count, get_table_data, and get_table_structure.

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 guidelines: use for SELECT queries only, with enforced pagination, and explicitly states when not to use it (DDL and DML operations like CREATE, ALTER, DROP, INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE are rejected). This gives clear alternatives (avoid this tool for non-SELECT operations) and context for when it's appropriate.

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