SingleStore MCP Server

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.