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 mentions 'fetches' and 'shows tables and columns', but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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 core purpose ('Fetches the schema') and adds specific detail ('showing tables and columns'). Every word contributes value with no redundancy or waste.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It lacks behavioral context like response format or error conditions, which is important for a tool that fetches database schema, though the low complexity mitigates some need.

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, with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose. Baseline 4 is applied as per rules for zero parameters.

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 verb ('fetches') and resource ('schema of the connected Supabase database'), specifying it shows 'tables and columns'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like fetchNeonSchema and fetchPostgreSQLSchema by naming Supabase, but doesn't explicitly differentiate beyond the database type.

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 Supabase database structure, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like executeSupabaseSqlQuery or other schema-fetching tools. It lacks prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context with siblings.

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