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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.