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 safe, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, returns error details, or has rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, front-loading the core action and resource. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, 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's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is somewhat complete but lacks key context. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling or prerequisites, making it adequate but with clear gaps for informed 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 meaning beyond the input schema: it clarifies that 'pk' refers to a database connection ID. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the parameter is undocumented in the schema, and the description doesn't fully compensate by explaining format (e.g., integer range) or constraints, so it only partially addresses the gap.

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 database connection by ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'get_dashboard' or 'get_dataset', which follow the same 'get X by ID' pattern, so it misses full differentiation.

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, or comparisons to siblings like 'list_databases' for browsing or 'get_dataset' for other resources, leaving usage context unclear.

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