Rasdaman 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 states the tool 'retrieves' metadata, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'structural metadata' entails. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse, which is ideal for conciseness.

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 has an output schema (which likely documents return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and one parameter, the description is minimal—it states the purpose but lacks details on usage, parameters, or behavioral traits, making it only partially complete for effective tool selection.

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 0% description coverage, so the parameter 'coverage_id' is undocumented. The description adds minimal value by implying it's for a 'specific datacube', but doesn't explain what a coverage_id is, its format, or where to obtain it. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Retrieves') and resource ('structural metadata for a specific datacube (coverage)'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_coverages' (which likely lists multiple coverages) or 'execute_wcps_query' (which likely performs queries), so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.

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 'list_coverages' or 'execute_wcps_query'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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