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 a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'Get' entails (e.g., returns metadata, full data, or a reference). This is inadequate for a tool with no 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—'Get a dataset by ID or UUID.' It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 1 parameter, no annotations, and an output schema exists (so return values needn't be explained), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details, making it adequate yet with clear gaps for effective tool invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying the parameter accepts 'ID or UUID', clarifying it's not just any string/integer. However, it doesn't explain format, examples, or constraints beyond the schema's basic types, leaving gaps. With 1 parameter and low coverage, this is a minimal but not sufficient improvement.

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 dataset'), specifying retrieval by ID or UUID. It distinguishes from siblings like list_datasets (which lists multiple) and get_dataset_related_objects (which fetches related items), though not explicitly. However, it lacks explicit sibling differentiation, 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. For example, it doesn't mention using list_datasets to find IDs first or get_or_create_dataset for conditional retrieval. The description implies usage by stating 'by ID or UUID' but offers no context or exclusions, leaving gaps for agent decision-making.

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