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 what the tool returns (detailed information about each workspace with 7 specific fields) and its purpose (listing available workspaces). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements that would be helpful for a listing 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return value details, and then specific use cases. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second details what it returns, and the bulleted list provides concrete usage guidance. No wasted words.

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 listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent coverage of what the tool does and returns. It specifies the 7 fields in the response and gives clear use cases. The main gap is lack of information about response format (array structure) and any limitations, but given the tool's relative 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 tool has only one parameter (ctx) with 0% schema description coverage. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, which is appropriate since ctx is an optional context parameter for MCP functionality. For a tool with effectively zero operational parameters, the description adequately 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 tool's purpose with specific verb ('List') and resource ('all starter (virtual) workspaces available to the user in SingleStore'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'create_virtual_workspace' (creation vs listing) and 'workspaces_info' (starter/virtual vs general workspace info).

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 three specific use cases: '1. Get virtual workspace IDs for other operations', '2. Check starter workspace availability and status', and '3. Obtain connection details for database access'. This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'workspaces_info' or 'execute_sql_on_virtual_workspace'.

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