MCP RifaExpress Backend

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 inspects table schema, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the table does not exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 in Spanish that directly states the tool's purpose and scope. It is front-loaded with the main action ('Inspecciona el schema de una tabla específica') and includes relevant details ('columnas, tipos, nullability, etc.') without unnecessary elaboration. Every part of the sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (a simple schema inspection with one parameter) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally complete. It explains what the tool does but does not cover behavioral aspects or usage context. It is adequate for basic understanding but lacks depth needed for full agent guidance, especially without annotations to fill in gaps.

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, with the parameter 'tableName' clearly documented as 'Name of the table to inspect'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics without extra input from the description.

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 tool's purpose: 'Inspecciona el schema de una tabla específica' (Inspects the schema of a specific table). It specifies the verb 'inspecciona' (inspects) and the resource 'schema de una tabla' (table schema), and mentions what information is retrieved: 'columnas, tipos, nullability, etc.' (columns, types, nullability, etc.). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'rifaexpress_list_tables' or 'rifaexpress_query_db', which is why it scores 4 instead of 5.

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. It does not mention when it should be used (e.g., for schema analysis before querying), when not to use it (e.g., for data retrieval), or refer to sibling tools like 'rifaexpress_list_tables' (which might list tables) or 'rifaexpress_query_db' (which might query data). This lack of contextual guidance results in a low score.

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