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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.