superset-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions optional filtering by name but doesn't describe pagination behavior (though parameters suggest it), authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like. For a list operation with pagination parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 at just 7 words total. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('List charts') followed by the key optional functionality. Every word earns its place with zero wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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 that there's an output schema (which should document return values), the description's job is reduced. However, for a tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description should do more to explain the pagination behavior and filtering capabilities. It's minimally adequate but leaves the agent to infer too much.

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 'Optionally filter by name' which corresponds to the 'search' parameter, providing some semantic context beyond the 0% schema description coverage. However, it doesn't explain the pagination parameters ('page' and 'page_size') or their default values/interactions. With 3 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description adds some but insufficient value.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'List charts' which is a clear verb+resource combination, but it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'list_dashboards' or 'list_datasets' that follow the same pattern. The optional filtering by name adds some specificity but doesn't create meaningful differentiation from other list tools.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when this tool should be chosen over 'get_chart' (for retrieving a specific chart) or how it relates to 'list_dashboards' which might contain charts. The optional filtering hint is basic functionality description, not usage guidance.

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