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. 'List' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (though hinted by parameters), or what the output contains. For a tool with parameters and output schema, 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses straightforward language. Every word earns its place, 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 (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description lacks context about the listing scope, authentication, or how it relates to sibling tools. It's complete enough for basic understanding but leaves gaps for effective 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it provides no parameter information. The schema shows pagination parameters (page, page_size), but the description doesn't mention pagination at all. Since there are only 2 parameters and an output schema exists, this meets the baseline but doesn't add meaningful semantics.

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 'List saved SQL queries' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('saved SQL queries'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'execute_sql' or 'save_query' by focusing on listing rather than executing or creating. However, it doesn't specify scope (e.g., all queries or filtered) which prevents 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for listing queries, or differentiate from similar tools like 'get_select_star' or 'list_tables'. Without any usage context, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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