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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.