Execute BigQuery statements after policy checks and dry run, returning up to a row cap with a truncation flag.
Run one statement after the policy checks and a dry run. Returns at most the row cap;
truncated says when more rows exist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sql | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add useful behavior: execution follows policy checks and a dry run, results are capped, and truncated indicates more rows exist. It does not disclose side effects or whether write statements are permitted, leaving some behavioral details to inference.
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 entire behavior is captured in one tight, front-loaded sentence plus a short result note. Every clause adds information about preconditions, output bounds, or truncation signaling.
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 one-parameter query execution tool with an output schema, the description covers the key preconditions and result semantics. It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly, though it leaves the exact policy-check behavior implied.
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 schema provides no description for sql, so the description must compensate. 'Run one statement' clarifies that the sql parameter holds a single statement rather than a script, but no syntax, format, or constraints are given; the field name itself carries most of the meaning.
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 opens with the specific action 'Run one statement' and identifies the target as a SQL statement via the sql parameter. It also differentiates from the dry_run sibling by stating execution happens after policy checks and a dry run.
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?
By saying execution occurs 'after the policy checks and a dry run', the description places run_query in a clear workflow alongside dry_run. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use cases, but the intended context is sufficiently clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.