superset-mcp

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 states 'Get all charts in a dashboard,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what 'get' returns (e.g., chart objects, metadata). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete parameter guidance, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions or error handling, making it incomplete for full contextual understanding.

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 mentions 'in a dashboard,' which implies the parameter 'id_or_slug' identifies a dashboard, adding context beyond the schema's 0% coverage. However, it doesn't explain the parameter's format (string vs. integer) or provide examples. With one parameter and low schema coverage, this partial compensation earns a baseline score.

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 ('all charts in a dashboard'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_chart' (single chart) and 'list_charts' (all charts across dashboards), though not explicitly. However, it lacks specificity about what 'get' entails (e.g., metadata vs. data), preventing a perfect score.

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 siblings like 'get_chart' (for a single chart) or 'list_charts' (for all charts), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. The description is too minimal to imply any usage rules.

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