superset-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'Get[s] a chart', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., for invalid IDs), rate limits, or response format. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste: 'Get a chart by ID or UUID.' It front-loads the core action and key detail (ID/UUID), making it easy to parse. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete parameter documentation, it lacks details on usage context, errors, or behavioral nuances, making it incomplete for fully informed tool selection.

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 with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by ID or UUID', adding meaning about the parameter's purpose (identifying a chart) and acceptable types (string or integer). However, it doesn't explain format specifics (e.g., UUID structure) or constraints, leaving the parameter partially documented.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a chart'), specifying it's by 'ID or UUID'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_charts' (which lists multiple) and 'get_chart_data' (which retrieves data rather than metadata). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_dashboard' or 'get_dataset', which are similar retrieval operations for 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid ID/UUID), contrast with 'list_charts' for browsing, or specify scenarios like retrieving metadata versus data (vs. 'get_chart_data'). The description is purely functional without contextual advice.

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