Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• explain_planB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns output but does not mention that it is read-only, does not execute the query, or any prerequisites like required privileges. This lack of detail could mislead an agent into thinking the query is run or that it has side effects.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any fluff. It is front-loaded with the key information. Every word earns its place.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool has one parameter and an output schema exists, the description is still too minimal. It lacks usage guidelines, behavioral transparency, and any context about prerequisites or side effects. For an agent to use it correctly, more information is needed.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds that the 'sql' parameter must be a SELECT query, which is not indicated in the schema. However, it does not specify format, syntax rules, or restrictions (e.g., no DDL). This is minimal added value.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool returns Oracle EXPLAIN PLAN output for a SELECT query. The verb 'Return' and resource 'Oracle EXPLAIN PLAN output' are specific. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'run_select' (which executes the query) and 'top_sql' (which lists top SQL).

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies use for analyzing query execution plans without running the query, no when-not or alternative tools are mentioned. The guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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

• top_sqlA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals the tool queries v$sql but does not disclose potential performance impact, required privileges, or return format (e.g., SQL text truncation). Minimal behavioral details beyond the core function.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and a clear usage hint. No redundant information.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks parameter explanations and behavioral context (e.g., whether results are sorted by elapsed time descending). The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but gaps remain.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the two parameters (window_minutes, limit). The text only vaguely references 'N minutes' without mapping to the parameter. No additional meaning beyond parameter names and defaults.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('Top SQL by elapsed time'), the source ('v$sql'), and the temporal scope ('within the last N minutes'). It also provides a specific use case ('what's been slow recently?'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like run_select 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.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly mentions the tool is useful for investigating recent slow queries, providing clear context. However, it does not list when to avoid using it or explicitly name alternative tools for other scenarios.

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

• describe_tableA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It mentions an error condition for schema allowlisting but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, response format beyond 'column metadata', or handling of non-existent tables. Adequate but lacking depth.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two sentences. First sentence efficiently states the purpose; second adds a key constraint. No extraneous text. Front-loaded with the core action.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the simple nature of the tool (returning column metadata) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential: what it does and a notable error condition. It could mention that results are read-only or that it describes exactly what columns exist, but overall sufficient.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Input schema has 0% property description coverage. The description uses 'SCHEMA.TABLE' to imply a dot-separated usage pattern but does not specify case sensitivity, allowed characters, or format conventions. Minimal value added beyond the schema's property names.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Description explicitly states 'Return column metadata for SCHEMA.TABLE', which clearly identifies the action (return) and resource (column metadata) for a specific schema and table. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_schemas or run_select by implying DDL metadata retrieval.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides a constraint ('Errors if schema is not in the configured allowlist') but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., vs list_schemas for schema listing or run_select for data). Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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

• run_selectA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  With no annotations, description fully carries the burden. Discloses restrictions (statement type, row cap, PII redaction, timeout) and return format. No contradictions.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Front-loaded with purpose, uses bullet points for guardrails. Some redundancy but overall efficient for the information conveyed.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Covers purpose, guardrails, and basic return format. With output schema present, return details are adequate. However, lacks info on error handling or pagination behavior.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Single parameter 'sql' has 0% schema description coverage. Description adds no extra meaning or constraints beyond the schema's type definition. No examples or format guidance.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Clearly states 'Run a SELECT or WITH query against Oracle' with specific verb and resource. Distinct from siblings like describe_table, explain_plan, etc.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Provides guardrails (only SELECT/WITH, rejects other types, row cap, PII redaction) that implicitly guide when to use. Lacks explicit alternatives but the guardrails sufficiently clarify scope.

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

• list_schemasA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that no DB call is required and that schemas are configured via an allowlist, which are key behavioral traits. However, it omits details like response format or permission requirements.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value: purpose, configuration context, and behavioral note. No wasted words.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given zero parameters and an output schema (not shown but exists), the description covers the tool's purpose, configuration source, and non-DB nature completely. No gaps remain.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% trivially. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no param info since none exist.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description explicitly states 'List schemas the MCP server is allowed to query' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it is a metadata tool requiring no DB call, which aligns with the sibling tools' focus on operations.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  While the description implies this tool is for discovering allowed schemas before using database tools like describe_table or run_select, it does not explicitly state when to use or avoid it relative to siblings.

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