WayStation MCP Server

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 query is 'read-only,' which implies safety, but doesn't cover other critical behaviors: permissions required, rate limits, error handling, result format (e.g., JSON, rows affected), timeouts, or transaction support. For a database query tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 waste: 'Executes a read-only SQL query against your Supabase database and returns the results.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan and understand 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 complexity of a database query tool, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., security, performance), usage context, and output format. While concise, it doesn't provide enough information for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without risking errors or misunderstandings.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage (the 'query' parameter is documented as 'The SQL query to execute'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't elaborate on query syntax, supported SQL dialects, parameterization, or examples. It merely repeats that a SQL query is executed.

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: 'Executes a read-only SQL query against your Supabase database and returns the results.' It specifies the verb ('executes'), resource ('Supabase database'), and scope ('read-only SQL query'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling SQL execution tools like 'executeNeonSqlQuery' or 'executePostgreSQLSqlQuery' beyond mentioning Supabase specifically.

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 when to choose this over other SQL execution tools (e.g., for Supabase vs. Neon/PostgreSQL), nor does it specify prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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