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 but doesn't describe pagination behavior (though schema shows page/page_size), rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with empty results. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 - just two short sentences with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently adds the filtering capability. Every word earns its place in this minimal description.

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 (list operation with filtering and pagination), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema existence means return values don't need explanation, but the description should do more to explain behavioral aspects and parameter usage given the complete lack of annotation coverage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the 'search' parameter's purpose ('filter by title'), which adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't mention the pagination parameters (page/page_size) or their default values, leaving some parameters undocumented.

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 ('List dashboards') which is clear but basic. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_charts' or 'list_datasets' beyond specifying the resource type. The optional filtering mention adds some specificity but doesn't fully distinguish it 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 minimal guidance - it mentions optional filtering by title but gives no context about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_dashboard' for specific dashboards or other list tools for different resources. No explicit when/when-not guidance or sibling tool comparisons are included.

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