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 mentions execution and returning results but lacks critical details: whether queries can be read-only or include writes, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned results. For a SQL execution tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 and front-loaded: 'Execute a SQL query and return results.' It's a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying the core functionality.

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 complexity (executing arbitrary SQL) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete behavioral context, it leaves gaps in understanding safety, permissions, and operational constraints, making it only partially complete for effective agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (database_id, sql, schema, limit) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as query syntax examples or schema usage context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Execute a SQL query and return results.' It specifies the verb ('execute') and resource ('SQL query'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'format_sql' or 'estimate_query_cost', which are related but distinct operations.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid database ID), exclusions (e.g., not for data modification queries), or comparisons with siblings like 'format_sql' (for formatting) or 'estimate_query_cost' (for cost estimation).

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