Review PostgreSQL migration SQL to detect destructive operations, lock or rewrite risks, and transaction conflicts before running it. Does not execute SQL.
Review PostgreSQL migration SQL for destructive operations, lock/rewrite risks and transaction conflicts. Does not execute.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sql | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Does not execute' largely restates the structured safety profile. The added value is naming the categories of issues it detects, which is more purpose than behavior; nothing is said about output format or size limits for the 100k-char input.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the scope and risk categories front-loaded and the critical non-execution caveat trailing immediately.
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?
For a read-only, single-parameter analysis tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the definition is largely sufficient. Naming the returned findings or the input length constraint would close the remaining gap.
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?
One parameter at 0% schema description coverage. The description implies the parameter is migration SQL text, but adds no format, dialect-version, or batching guidance beyond that implication, so it only marginally compensates for the empty schema documentation.
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?
States a specific verb (Review) plus resource (PostgreSQL migration SQL) and enumerates the exact risk classes examined: destructive operations, lock/rewrite risks, transaction conflicts. Combined with 'Does not execute', an agent can distinguish this static review tool from siblings like analyze_query or explain_plan.
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 the usage context (migration SQL under review) and clarifies it is non-executing, but it never states when to prefer this over analyze_query or explain_plan, nor any preconditions. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.