Run bounded read-only SQL SELECT, MongoDB find, or Redis GET with explicit assertions. Uses bound parameters and records timing for safe database testing.
Perform a bounded read-only SQL SELECT, MongoDB find or Redis GET with explicit assertions. Requires a read-only account; uses bound parameters, never interpolated SQL. Records connection/query timing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| step | Yes | ||
| target | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context: requires a read-only account, uses bound parameters rather than interpolated SQL, and records connection/query timing. It does not describe error behavior or rate limits, but the added safety and execution details exceed the annotation baseline.
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?
Three front-loaded sentences with no redundant restatement of the tool name. Each sentence contributes purpose, safety/account requirements, or execution behavior.
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?
For a complex nested database tool with no output schema, the description establishes the high-level contract and safety profile. However, it leaves much of the nested invocation structure (target/step fields, capture, expect.checks) undocumented, so an agent still relies heavily on the raw schema.
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% for a deeply nested schema containing target, step, operation, expect, filter, params, capture, and driver/timeout options. The description only hints at operation types, assertions, and bound parameters; it does not explain how these fields map to the schema or what the nested step/target structures require.
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?
States a specific verb ('Perform') and concrete resource operations (SQL SELECT, MongoDB find, Redis GET) plus read-only scope. It is clearly distinct from database_capabilities, but does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.
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 implies use for bounded read-only queries and notes the read-only account prerequisite, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It also does not name alternatives such as database_capabilities.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.