superset-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Delete') but doesn't mention critical details like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., on related charts), or what the output schema indicates. This is inadequate for a destructive 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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words—and front-loaded with the core action. It efficiently communicates the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity of a destructive operation, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. While an output schema exists, the description doesn't address behavioral risks, prerequisites, or sibling tool distinctions, making it incomplete for safe and effective use.

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 adds minimal semantics by specifying that 'pk' corresponds to a dashboard ID, which is useful since schema description coverage is 0%. However, it doesn't explain what 'pk' stands for (e.g., primary key) or provide format/validation details, leaving gaps despite the single 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 action ('Delete') and resource ('a dashboard by ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_chart' or 'delete_dataset' beyond specifying the resource type, which is a minor gap.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to delete a dashboard instead of updating it or when deletion is irreversible. With multiple sibling tools (e.g., 'delete_chart', 'update_dashboard'), this lack of context is a significant omission.

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