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 what the tool returns ('region information including: regionID, provider, name') and implies it's a read-only operation by using 'list' and 'returns.' However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the list is static or dynamic. The description adds meaningful context but lacks some operational details.

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 a clear purpose statement, then details the return format in a bulleted list, and finally provides usage guidelines with specific scenarios. Every sentence earns its place by adding value without redundancy.

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 low complexity (no functional parameters, simple list operation) and no output schema, the description provides good completeness. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from mentioning potential behavioral aspects like whether the list is cached or real-time.

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 1 parameter (ctx) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description doesn't mention any parameters. Since there are 0 parameters that affect the tool's core functionality (ctx is a technical context parameter), the baseline is 4. 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 tool's purpose: 'List all available deployment regions where SingleStore workspaces can be deployed for the user.' It uses specific verbs ('list all available deployment regions') and identifies the resource ('SingleStore workspaces'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_virtual_workspaces' or 'workspaces_info' which focus on different resources.

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 explicitly provides usage guidelines with 'Use this tool to:' followed by two numbered scenarios: 1) 'Select optimal deployment regions based on...' with four specific criteria, and 2) 'Plan multi-region deployments.' This gives clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.