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 a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely non-destructive, but doesn't specify permissions required, rate limits, pagination, or what the output contains. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with data resources.

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 that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 has an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations, 1 parameter at 0% schema coverage, and moderate complexity (fetching datasets for a dashboard), the description is minimal but adequate as a basic overview, though it could benefit from more behavioral or usage details.

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 'a dashboard' which implies the 'id_or_slug' parameter refers to a dashboard identifier, adding some meaning beyond the schema's 0% coverage. However, it doesn't clarify the format or constraints of 'id_or_slug', such as whether it's numeric or string-based, so it only partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 target resource ('all datasets used by a dashboard'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_dataset' or 'list_datasets', which might retrieve datasets in other contexts, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.

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 like 'get_dataset' or 'list_datasets'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a dashboard identifier, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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