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 effectively describes the return format by listing all metadata fields (name, path, content, etc.), including permission information ('writable: Boolean indicating write permission'). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements, which would be helpful for a list operation.

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: it starts with a clear purpose statement, then details the return format in a bulleted list, and concludes with specific use cases in a numbered list. Every sentence adds value with zero waste, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 list tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameters, the description provides excellent coverage of purpose, return format, and usage guidelines. The only minor gap is the lack of behavioral details like pagination or error conditions, but given the tool's simplicity, this is a strong description that would help an agent use it correctly.

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 only one parameter ('ctx') with 0% description coverage, and the description doesn't mention any parameters. Since there are effectively 0 functional parameters (ctx is a technical context object), the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool does rather than parameter documentation.

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 ('List') and resource ('all files and notebooks in your shared SingleStore space'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'check_if_file_exists' (which verifies existence of a specific file) and 'list_notebook_samples' (which lists only sample notebooks).

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 four numbered use cases: '1. List workspace contents and structure', '2. Verify file existence before operations', '3. Check file timestamps and sizes', and '4. Determine file permissions'. These give clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_if_file_exists' for specific file verification.

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