SingleStore MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between execute_sql and execute_sql_on_virtual_workspace, which both execute SQL queries but on different workspace types. Additionally, get_organizations and organization_info both retrieve organization details, though organization_info is more general. Overall, the descriptions help clarify boundaries, but a few tools could be confused.
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming follows a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_notebook, list_shared_files, get_job_details) with snake_case throughout. Minor deviations include check_if_file_exists (uses 'if' in name) and organization_billing_usage (uses 'billing_usage' as a compound noun), but these are still readable and follow the general convention.
Tool Count3/5
With 21 tools, the count feels heavy for the server's purpose of managing SingleStore notebooks, workspaces, and SQL operations. While the tools cover various aspects, some could be consolidated (e.g., the two SQL execution tools), making the set borderline excessive. However, it's not extreme, as the domain is moderately broad.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides good coverage for notebook management (create, check, get path, list samples), workspace operations (create, list, info), job scheduling (create, get details, list executions), and SQL execution. Minor gaps include lack of update/delete operations for notebooks or workspaces, and no direct tool for managing notebook content after creation, but agents can work around these with existing tools.
Average 4.2/5 across 21 of 21 tools scored. Lowest: 3.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a retrieval operation (read-only) and describes what information is returned, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this requires specific permissions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by bullet points of returned information. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy. The bullet format enhances readability while maintaining brevity.
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 read-only information retrieval tool with no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and return format details. However, without annotations and with sibling tools that might overlap (like 'get_organizations'), the description could better clarify this tool's specific niche and any behavioral constraints.
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 only one parameter (ctx) with 0% schema description coverage. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, which is acceptable since this appears to be a context injection parameter rather than a user-facing input. For a tool with effectively zero user-facing parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate as the description focuses on what the tool does rather than parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves organization information for the current user in SingleStore, specifying the verb 'retrieve' and resource 'organization details'. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_organizations' by focusing on the current user's organization rather than listing all organizations.
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 implies usage context by specifying 'current user's organization', suggesting this tool is for getting details about the user's own organization. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus 'get_organizations' or other sibling tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool checks existence and returns a JSON object with status and message, which is useful. However, it doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, permissions required, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation (though 'check' implies non-destructive). The description adds some context but lacks depth for a tool with no annotation support.
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?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first, followed by args and returns sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the args/returns into a single paragraph, but overall it's well-structured and efficient.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (simple existence check), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and return format, but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., error cases, permissions) and usage guidelines relative to siblings. For a basic tool, it's adequate but has clear gaps in contextual information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'file_name' is the 'Name of the file to check (with or without .ipynb extension)', clarifying the parameter's purpose and format. This compensates fully for the schema's lack of documentation, making the parameter semantics clear and actionable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check if a file (notebook) exists in the user's shared space.' It specifies the verb ('check'), resource ('file/notebook'), and scope ('user's shared space'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_shared_files' or 'get_notebook_path', which might offer related functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_shared_files' (which might list files) or 'get_notebook_path' (which might retrieve paths), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 does disclose that the tool retrieves data (implying read-only) and describes the return format ('usage metrics and billing information'), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the data is real-time vs cached. It adds some behavioral context but leaves significant gaps.
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?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement, bullet points for use cases, and separate sections for arguments and returns. It's appropriately sized at 7 sentences with no wasted words. The front-loaded purpose statement is effective, though the bullet points could be integrated more seamlessly.
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 tool with 4 parameters (3 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a reasonable job. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return format adequately. However, it lacks information about authentication, error handling, rate limits, and specific data format of the returned metrics. Given the complexity of billing/usage data, more detail would be beneficial.
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 description provides excellent parameter semantics despite 0% schema description coverage. It clearly explains all three required parameters: start_time and end_time as UTC ISO 8601 timestamps defining the period, and aggregate_type with its allowed values ('hour', 'day', 'month'). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions and adds meaningful context beyond basic type information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieve detailed billing and usage metrics for your organization over a specified time period.' It specifies the resource (organization billing/usage metrics) and the action (retrieve). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'organization_info' or 'workspaces_info' which might also provide organizational data.
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 implied usage context by stating the tool is 'essential for monitoring resource consumption patterns and analyzing cost trends.' However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'organization_info' or provide clear exclusions. The guidance is helpful but not comprehensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes what data is returned (execution records with specific fields) and implies read-only behavior through 'retrieve', but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or pagination behavior for large result sets.
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?
Well-structured with clear sections (purpose, returns, args, returns again) and efficient sentences. The duplicate 'Returns:' section is slightly redundant but doesn't significantly impact readability. Most sentences earn their place by providing specific 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 tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate parameter semantics and return format details. However, it lacks important behavioral context like authentication requirements, error handling, and performance characteristics that would be needed for robust agent usage.
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 description provides clear semantics for all 3 required parameters (job_id as UUID, start/end as execution number range with defaults), adding significant value beyond the 0% schema description coverage. It explains what each parameter represents and their default values, though it doesn't clarify the optional 'ctx' parameter.
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 verb 'retrieve' and the resource 'execution history and performance metrics for a scheduled notebook job'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_job_details' by focusing specifically on execution history rather than job configuration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_job_details' or 'create_scheduled_job'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or appropriate contexts for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While it details the return structure (e.g., 'name', 'description', 'contentURL'), it lacks information on critical behaviors such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only or has side effects. The description does not contradict annotations, but it is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.
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?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and then detailing the return fields and common categories. Each sentence adds value, such as clarifying the resource scope and listing return attributes. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the categories into the initial sentence, but overall it avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete for a read-only listing operation. It explains what the tool does and what it returns. However, without annotations or an output schema, it lacks details on error cases, pagination, or performance characteristics, which could be relevant for an AI agent's decision-making.
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 input schema has only one optional parameter ('ctx') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention any parameters. Since there are effectively 0 user-facing parameters to document, the description adequately covers the tool's semantics without needing to explain inputs. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters.
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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('catalog of pre-built notebook templates available in SingleStore Spaces'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'create_notebook' or 'get_notebook_path' by focusing on listing available templates rather than creating or accessing specific notebooks.
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 implies usage by listing common template categories (e.g., 'Getting Started guides', 'Machine learning integrations'), which suggests when this tool might be helpful. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_notebook' or provide any exclusion criteria, leaving some ambiguity about optimal usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a retrieval operation (implied read-only) and describes the return structure in detail, which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention error conditions (e.g., invalid job ID), authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent—important gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, returns, args, returns) and front-loaded the core purpose. However, the 'Returns' section is duplicated (once as a bullet list, once as a sentence), creating minor redundancy. Most sentences earn their place by adding value.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job explaining what the tool returns (detailed bullet list) and the key parameter. For a read-only retrieval tool with one main parameter, this is reasonably complete, though it could benefit from error handling or authentication context.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly documents the single required parameter 'job_id' with its purpose ('UUID of the scheduled job to retrieve details for') and format ('UUID'), adding significant value beyond the bare schema. The 'ctx' parameter is not mentioned, but with 0% coverage in schema, the description's focus on the essential parameter is appropriate.
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 verb 'retrieve' and resource 'comprehensive information about a scheduled notebook job', making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'list_job_executions' (which lists executions rather than retrieving job details) and 'create_scheduled_job' (which creates rather than retrieves).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid job ID), when not to use it (e.g., for listing jobs vs. getting details), or how it relates to sibling tools like 'list_job_executions'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 describes the tool's function and output format, but lacks details about permissions needed, error conditions, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only vs. mutative. The description mentions 'generate the properly formatted path' which implies computation rather than data modification, but doesn't explicitly state safety characteristics. It adds some context about the return value format but misses other behavioral aspects.
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?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, then provides parameter details in an 'Args' section, return value information, and specific usage context. Each sentence adds value, though the parameter documentation could be slightly more concise. The information is front-loaded with the most important purpose statement first.
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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides good coverage. It explains the purpose, parameters, return value format, and specific usage context. The main gaps are lack of error handling information and no explanation of the optional 'ctx' parameter. For a path resolution tool, this is reasonably complete, though not exhaustive.
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 description provides meaningful parameter information beyond the schema: it explains that 'notebook_name' can be 'with or without .ipynb extension' and that 'location' accepts 'personal' or 'shared' values. With 0% schema description coverage, this significantly compensates by documenting parameter semantics that aren't in the schema. However, it doesn't explain the optional 'ctx' parameter or provide examples of valid notebook names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find the complete path of a notebook by its name and generate the properly formatted path for API operations.' This specifies the verb ('find' and 'generate'), resource ('notebook'), and output ('properly formatted path'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_notebook_samples' or 'create_notebook' by focusing on path resolution rather than listing or creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'check_if_file_exists' which might also involve path operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Required for: - Creating scheduled jobs (use returned path as notebook_path parameter)'. This clearly states when to use this tool (as a prerequisite for scheduled job creation) and how to use its output. It effectively distinguishes this tool from alternatives by specifying its role in a workflow context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 does an excellent job describing security constraints, query restrictions, and the return format (query results with column names, typed values, row count, column metadata, execution status). It also warns about credential handling and query sanitization. The main gap is lack of information about error conditions or performance characteristics.
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?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, returns, security warning, args, returns). It's appropriately sized for a tool with security implications. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the security warning section is quite detailed. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first.
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 complexity (SQL execution with security implications), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job covering the essential aspects. It explains the purpose, security constraints, and return format. The main gaps are incomplete parameter documentation and lack of error handling information, but for a tool without structured metadata support, it's reasonably complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description documents two parameters (virtual_workspace_id and sql_query) but omits the three other parameters (username, password, ctx) that appear in the input schema. While it adds value for the documented parameters, it doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap, leaving half the parameters undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Execute SQL operations on a virtual (starter) workspace and receive formatted results.' It specifies both the action (execute SQL) and the target resource (virtual workspace). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'execute_sql' tool, which appears to be a similar operation but possibly on different targets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidelines with the security warning section. It clearly states 'ONLY USE SELECT statements or queries that don't modify data' and lists prohibited operations (INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE, DROP, CREATE, ALTER). This gives clear boundaries for when to use this tool versus alternatives that might modify data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 effectively describes the multi-step creation process (workspace, user account, credential return), which goes beyond a simple 'create' statement. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, error conditions, or rate limits that would be helpful for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement, numbered process steps, and organized parameter/return sections. It is appropriately sized for a complex tool, though the 'Returns' section could be more specific (e.g., what fields are included) to enhance clarity without adding bulk.
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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description does a good job covering purpose, process, and parameters. However, it lacks details on error handling, authentication requirements, or example return values, which would make it more complete for a creation tool in a multi-step environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes an 'Args' section that clearly explains all 6 parameters (5 required, 1 optional) with meaningful semantics beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage. For example, it clarifies that 'name' must be unique, 'database_name' is created in the workspace, and 'workspace_group' is optional configuration. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 specific action ('Create a new starter (virtual) workspace in SingleStore and set up user access'), identifies the resource (virtual workspace), and distinguishes from siblings like 'list_virtual_workspaces' or 'workspaces_info' by focusing on creation rather than listing or querying. The three-step process further clarifies the scope.
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 implies usage context through the process steps (e.g., when you need a new workspace with user access), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_virtual_workspaces' for viewing existing ones or 'execute_sql_on_virtual_workspace' for operations on an existing workspace. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 what the tool returns (a string ID) and includes a performance tip about caching, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'retrieve' implies it).
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 perfectly structured with clear sections (purpose, returns, required for, performance tip), each sentence adds value, and there's no wasted text. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently organized for quick comprehension.
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?
For a simple ID retrieval tool with no output schema, the description provides good coverage: it states the purpose, return type, usage context, and a performance consideration. The main gap is lack of explicit behavioral details like authentication requirements or error handling, but given the tool's simplicity, this is reasonably complete.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates well by not needing to explain parameters. The single parameter (ctx) appears to be an optional context object for MCP functionality rather than core tool logic. Since the tool effectively has 0 meaningful parameters for its primary function, the description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and output rather than parameter details.
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 verb 'retrieve' and the resource 'organization's unique identifier (project ID)', making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'get_user_id' by focusing on the organization/project level rather than user identification.
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 'Required for' section provides clear context about when to use this tool ('constructing paths or references to shared resources'), which helps the agent understand its application. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, preventing a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 clearly describes the read-only nature by stating 'List' and detailing the return structure, which implies non-destructive behavior. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or pagination behavior, leaving gaps in operational context.
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?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, return details, Args, Returns) and front-loaded key information. Every sentence adds value, though the detailed return field listing is somewhat lengthy but necessary given the lack of output schema. Minor trimming could improve conciseness without losing clarity.
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?
For a read-only tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides strong context: it clearly explains the purpose, parameter, and detailed return structure. However, it lacks information on behavioral aspects like error handling or performance characteristics, which would enhance completeness for agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, with only a basic title for the parameter. The description compensates fully by explicitly documenting the single required parameter 'workspace_group_id' in the Args section with a clear explanation ('Unique identifier of the workspace group'), adding essential meaning beyond the minimal schema information.
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 specific action ('List all workspaces'), the target resource ('within a specified workspace group in SingleStore'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'workspace_groups_info' (which lists groups rather than workspaces) and 'list_virtual_workspaces' (which appears to list a different type of workspace). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.
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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool by specifying 'within a specified workspace group,' suggesting it's for listing workspaces within a particular group context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like 'list_virtual_workspaces' for comparison, leaving some ambiguity about tool selection in related scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 effectively describes the return value format ('UUID format identifier') and adds valuable operational context with the 'Performance Tip' about caching for multiple API calls. It doesn't cover potential errors, authentication needs, or rate limits, but provides solid behavioral guidance for a read-only operation.
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 perfectly structured with clear sections: purpose statement, return specification, usage context, and performance tip. Every sentence adds value with zero redundancy. The information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated first.
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?
For a simple identifier retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent context about what it returns and when to use it. The performance tip adds operational value. It could potentially mention authentication requirements or error cases, but overall it's quite complete for this tool type.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage for its single optional parameter (ctx), but the tool description appropriately focuses on the core functionality since this appears to be a zero-parameter tool in practice (ctx has a default of null). The description doesn't need to explain parameters when the tool effectively takes none, earning a strong baseline score.
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 specific action ('Retrieve') and resource ('current user's unique identifier'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_project_id or get_organizations. It specifies the exact scope ('current user') and format ('UUID format identifier'), making the purpose unambiguous.
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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Required for: Constructing paths or references to personal resources'), which helps differentiate it from other user-related tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, preventing a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's role in session initialization, the authentication context ('your account has access to'), and the expected return format with specific fields (orgID, name). However, it doesn't mention potential rate limits, error conditions beyond 'no organizations', or performance characteristics.
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?
The description is well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, usage scenarios, and post-call handling instructions. While somewhat lengthy, every sentence adds value. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose first, followed by increasingly specific guidance.
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 tool's complexity (session initialization with user interaction guidance) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description provides substantial context about when to use it, what it returns, and how to handle results. It could be more complete by mentioning authentication requirements or error handling beyond the 'no organizations' case, but overall it's quite comprehensive for its purpose.
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 only one parameter (ctx) with 0% schema description coverage. The description doesn't explicitly mention parameters, but since there's only an optional context parameter that's typically injected automatically, this is reasonable. The description focuses on the tool's purpose and usage rather than parameter documentation, which is appropriate given the minimal parameter requirements.
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's purpose with specific verb ('List') and resource ('all available SingleStore organizations your account has access to'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'set_organization' or 'organization_info' by focusing on enumeration rather than selection or detailed information retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidelines with three numbered scenarios (starting a new session, verifying permissions, before switching context) and detailed post-call instructions for handling different result scenarios (single organization, multiple organizations, no organizations). This gives clear when-to-use guidance beyond basic functionality.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 effectively communicates that this is a creation/mutation operation (implied by 'Create'), specifies the uniqueness constraint ('Must be unique in your personal space'), and provides important implementation details about content validation ('The content must be valid JSON') and platform-specific variables ('use the variable "connection_url" that already exists'). It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or error conditions, keeping it at a 4 rather than 5.
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?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, parameters, how to use) and uses bullet points effectively. While comprehensive, some sentences could be more concise (e.g., the JSON structure explanation is detailed but necessary given the 0% schema coverage). The front-loaded purpose statement is clear, and all content earns its place.
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?
For a creation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides substantial context. It covers purpose, parameters, usage guidelines, and implementation examples. However, it doesn't describe the return value or error conditions, which would be helpful given the absence of output schema. The MCP context parameter documentation in the schema partially compensates.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for 3 parameters, the description fully compensates by providing rich semantic information. It explains the 'notebook_name' parameter's extension handling and uniqueness requirement, and provides detailed JSON structure, validation rules, and examples for the 'content' parameter. The 'ctx' parameter is implicitly covered through the MCP context documentation in the schema.
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 specific action ('Create a new Jupyter notebook'), the target resource ('in your personal space'), and technical constraints ('Only supports python and markdown'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_scheduled_job' and 'create_virtual_workspace' by focusing specifically on notebook creation with language limitations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool, including prerequisites ('Before creating the notebook, call check_if_file_exists tool to verify if the notebook already exists') and best practices for content structure. It also distinguishes usage from other tools by specifying the notebook platform context and database connection approach.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by describing what gets created (job with specific return fields), execution modes ('Once' or 'Recurring'), and default behavior (create_snapshot default: True). It doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling specifics, but provides substantial behavioral context for a creation tool.
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?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (Parameters, Returns, Common Use Cases, Related Operations) and front-loads the core purpose. Some redundancy exists (job info details could be more concise), but each section adds value. The structure helps the agent quickly find relevant information.
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?
For a creation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides comprehensive context: parameter semantics, return value structure, use cases, and related tools. It doesn't explain the 'ctx' parameter from the schema, but covers the three required parameters thoroughly. The return value documentation partially compensates for missing output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter documentation: notebook_path ('Complete path to the notebook'), mode ('Once' for single execution or 'Recurring' for repeated runs'), and create_snapshot ('Enable notebook backup before execution (default: True)'). It adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema with explanations, options, 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 tool's purpose with specific verb ('create') and resource ('automated job to execute a SingleStore notebook on a schedule'). It distinguishes from siblings like create_notebook (creates notebook vs. schedules job) and execute_sql (immediate execution vs. scheduled). The opening sentence provides complete purpose definition.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance through 'Common Use Cases' section (Automated Data Processing, Scheduled Reporting, Maintenance Tasks) and 'Related Operations' section that names specific alternatives (get_job_details, list_job_executions). This tells the agent when to use this tool and what complementary tools exist for monitoring created jobs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 describes what the tool returns ('region information including: regionID, provider, name') and implies it's a read-only operation by using 'list' and 'returns.' However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the list is static or dynamic. The description adds meaningful context but lacks some operational details.
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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, then details the return format in a bulleted list, and finally provides usage guidelines with specific scenarios. Every sentence earns its place by adding value without redundancy.
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 tool's low complexity (no functional parameters, simple list operation) and no output schema, the description provides good completeness. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from mentioning potential behavioral aspects like whether the list is cached or real-time.
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 input schema has 1 parameter (ctx) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description doesn't mention any parameters. Since there are 0 parameters that affect the tool's core functionality (ctx is a technical context parameter), the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and output rather than parameter details.
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's purpose: 'List all available deployment regions where SingleStore workspaces can be deployed for the user.' It uses specific verbs ('list all available deployment regions') and identifies the resource ('SingleStore workspaces'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_virtual_workspaces' or 'workspaces_info' which focus on different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly provides usage guidelines with 'Use this tool to:' followed by two numbered scenarios: 1) 'Select optimal deployment regions based on...' with four specific criteria, and 2) 'Plan multi-region deployments.' This gives clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 effectively describes the return format by listing all metadata fields (name, path, content, etc.), including permission information ('writable: Boolean indicating write permission'). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements, which would be helpful for a list operation.
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 perfectly structured: it starts with a clear purpose statement, then details the return format in a bulleted list, and concludes with specific use cases in a numbered list. Every sentence adds value with zero waste, making it easy to scan and understand.
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?
For a list tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameters, the description provides excellent coverage of purpose, return format, and usage guidelines. The only minor gap is the lack of behavioral details like pagination or error conditions, but given the tool's simplicity, this is a strong description that would help an agent use it correctly.
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 input schema has only one parameter ('ctx') with 0% description coverage, and the description doesn't mention any parameters. Since there are effectively 0 functional parameters (ctx is a technical context object), the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool does rather than parameter documentation.
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 verb ('List') and resource ('all files and notebooks in your shared SingleStore space'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'check_if_file_exists' (which verifies existence of a specific file) and 'list_notebook_samples' (which lists only sample notebooks).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly provides four numbered use cases: '1. List workspace contents and structure', '2. Verify file existence before operations', '3. Check file timestamps and sizes', and '4. Determine file permissions'. These give clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_if_file_exists' for specific file verification.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 effectively describes what the tool returns (detailed information about each workspace with 7 specific fields) and its purpose (listing available workspaces). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements that would be helpful for a listing operation.
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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return value details, and then specific use cases. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second details what it returns, and the bulleted list provides concrete usage guidance. No wasted words.
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?
For a listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent coverage of what the tool does and returns. It specifies the 7 fields in the response and gives clear use cases. The main gap is lack of information about response format (array structure) and any limitations, but given the tool's relative simplicity, this is reasonably complete.
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 only one parameter (ctx) with 0% schema description coverage. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, which is appropriate since ctx is an optional context parameter for MCP functionality. For a tool with effectively zero operational parameters, the description adequately focuses on what the tool does rather than parameter documentation.
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's purpose with specific verb ('List') and resource ('all starter (virtual) workspaces available to the user in SingleStore'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'create_virtual_workspace' (creation vs listing) and 'workspaces_info' (starter/virtual vs general workspace info).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly provides three specific use cases: '1. Get virtual workspace IDs for other operations', '2. Check starter workspace availability and status', and '3. Obtain connection details for database access'. This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'workspaces_info' or 'execute_sql_on_virtual_workspace'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 effectively describes key behaviors: the tool sets a persistent context ('all subsequent API calls will target the selected organization until changed'), requires prior authentication ('after logging in'), and has a specific effect on the session. It doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, or permissions, but covers the core mutation behavior adequately for a context-setting tool.
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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by prerequisites, behavioral context, and a clear usage section with bullet points. Every sentence adds value—no repetition or fluff—and the bullet points enhance readability without wasting space.
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 tool's moderate complexity (sets persistent context), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and behavioral impact. However, it lacks details on error cases (e.g., invalid orgID) and doesn't fully document the return value ('Dictionary with the selected organization ID and name' is vague without an output schema).
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 input schema has 0% description coverage (only titles), so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics: 'orgID: Name or ID of the organization to select' clarifies the parameter accepts either identifier type. However, it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., string patterns) or provide examples, leaving some ambiguity. Given the low schema coverage, this is above baseline but not exhaustive.
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's purpose: 'Select which SingleStore organization to use for all subsequent API calls.' It specifies the verb ('select'), resource ('organization'), and scope ('all subsequent API calls'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_organizations (which lists organizations) or organization_info (which provides details).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidelines: 'This tool must be called after logging in and before making other API requests' (prerequisites), 'Call get_organizations first to see available options' (dependency), and 'All subsequent API calls will use the selected organization' (effect). It clearly indicates when to use it (after login, before other calls) and references the sibling tool get_organizations as an alternative for discovery.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by detailing the return format with 8 specific fields. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions that would be helpful for a list operation.
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?
Well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, return value details, use cases, and related operations. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words. The bulleted format for return fields enhances readability without sacrificing conciseness.
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?
For a list operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent coverage of purpose, usage, and return format. However, it lacks information about behavioral aspects like pagination, sorting, or error handling that would make it fully complete.
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 only one parameter (ctx) with 0% schema description coverage. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, which is acceptable for a zero-parameter tool. However, since there is technically one optional parameter, a perfect score would require acknowledging it exists.
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 verb ('List') and resource ('all workspace groups accessible to the user in SingleStore'), providing specific scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'workspaces_info' which lists workspaces within groups, establishing clear differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly provides two primary use cases ('Get workspace group IDs for other operations' and 'Plan maintenance windows') and names a specific alternative tool ('Use workspaces_info to list workspaces within a group'). This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
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 and does so comprehensively. It specifies critical security behaviors (never display credentials, use read-only queries), operational constraints (proper query sanitization), and detailed return format (query results with column names, typed values, row count, metadata, execution status). This provides rich behavioral context beyond basic functionality.
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?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, returns, warnings, args, returns) and front-loads key information. However, the 'Returns' section appears twice with slightly different wording, creating minor redundancy. Most sentences earn their place by providing essential information.
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?
For a complex SQL execution tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering security constraints, return format, and parameter semantics. The main gap is incomplete parameter documentation (missing username/password/ctx explanations), but otherwise it provides substantial context for safe and effective tool use.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage for 7 parameters, the description compensates by providing semantic explanations for 4 parameters (workspace_group_identifier, workspace_identifier, database, sql_query) in the Args section. However, it doesn't explain the username and password parameters mentioned in the schema, leaving some parameter meaning undocumented. The ctx parameter is also unexplained, though it appears to be optional with a default null 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 verb ('execute SQL operations') and resource ('on a database attached to workspace within a workspace group'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'execute_sql_on_virtual_workspace' by specifying it works on databases attached to workspaces within workspace groups, not virtual workspaces.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives through the security warnings section, which specifies 'Use only READ-ONLY queries (SELECT, SHOW, DESCRIBE)' and lists prohibited operations. This clearly defines the appropriate use case and distinguishes it from tools that might allow modifications.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-server-singlestore MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/singlestore-labs/mcp-server-singlestore/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/singlestore-labs/mcp-server-singlestore)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-server-singlestore MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/singlestore-labs/mcp-server-singlestore/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/singlestore-labs/mcp-server-singlestore)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/singlestore-labs/mcp-server-singlestore'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server