Execute one parameterized SELECT on a database using :name bind parameters and an optional row limit that caps returned rows, not database work.
Execute one SELECT using :name bind parameters. Limit caps returned rows, not DB work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sql | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| params | No | ||
| database | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: bind parameters use :name syntax, and the limit parameter caps returned rows rather than reducing database work. It does not describe pagination or result delivery semantics, but those are partly covered by the output schema.
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, tightly front-loaded with the core action and then the important limit caveat. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler text.
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?
The description covers the core execution constraint and the non-obvious limit behavior, and annotations plus the output schema cover safety and return formatting. However, it omits guidance on the required database parameter and does not differentiate this tool from related siblings like execute_sql or explain_query, leaving routing 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the params object via ':name bind parameters' and clarifies the limit parameter ('Limit caps returned rows, not DB work'). It does not explain the database parameter or add detail about the sql parameter beyond 'one SELECT', leaving gaps for a 4-parameter tool.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Execute one SELECT'. It also constrains the SQL to a single SELECT statement. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as execute_sql or suggest_sql, so sibling differentiation is missing.
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?
Usage is implied: use this tool to run a single SELECT with bind parameters. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative sibling tools are mentioned. An agent can infer the intended read-query use case, but routing decisions are left to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.