SingleStore MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.