WayStation MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool fetches schema, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, rate limits, whether it returns metadata like constraints or indexes, or error handling. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 that front-loads the purpose ('Fetches the schema') and adds clarifying detail ('showing tables and columns'). It is appropriately sized with no wasted words, 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves database schema. It lacks details on return format (e.g., JSON structure, nested objects), scope (e.g., all tables or filtered), and behavioral aspects like connectivity or performance. For a schema-fetching tool with zero structured coverage, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description does not need to add parameter semantics, as there are none to document. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the description appropriately omits parameter details.

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 action ('fetches') and resource ('schema of the connected PostgreSQL database'), specifying what it shows ('tables and columns'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'executePostgreSQLSqlQuery' (which runs queries) and 'fetchNeonSchema' (different database), though not explicitly. Purpose is specific but sibling differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 usage for retrieving database structure, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'executePostgreSQLSqlQuery' for data queries or 'fetchNeonSchema' for other databases). Context is clear for schema inspection, but lacks exclusions or prerequisites.

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