superset-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a SELECT * query, but doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., SQL string, formatted result), whether it includes error handling, or if it requires specific permissions. 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 extremely concise and front-loaded in a single sentence: 'Get a SELECT * query for a table (with schema).' Every word contributes directly to the purpose, with no wasted information, 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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states the core purpose but lacks details on usage, parameters, and behavior. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but overall completeness is limited due to missing contextual guidance.

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%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'table (with schema)', implying the 'schema' parameter relates to table schema, but doesn't clarify its role or format. It doesn't explain 'database_id' or 'table_name' beyond what's inferred, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get a SELECT * query for a table (with schema).' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('SELECT * query'), and scope ('for a table with schema'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_table_metadata' or 'execute_sql', which could provide similar or overlapping functionality.

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, such as needing a valid database_id and table_name, or compare it to siblings like 'get_table_metadata' (which might return metadata without a query) or 'execute_sql' (which runs queries). Without such context, users might struggle to choose the right tool.

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