mysql_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 mentions searching but doesn't describe how the search works (e.g., exact match, partial match, case sensitivity), what happens if no match is found (e.g., returns null, error), or any performance considerations like rate limits. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys the essential information, making it easy to parse 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 tool's complexity (a simple search with one parameter) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, error handling, and output format. For a tool with no structured metadata beyond the input schema, it 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'text' documented as '要搜索的表中文名' (Chinese table name to search for). The description adds no additional semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints on the input format. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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: '根据表中文名搜索数据库中对应的表名' (search for corresponding table names in the database based on Chinese table names). It specifies the verb '搜索' (search) and resource '表名' (table names) with the input constraint '表中文名' (Chinese table names). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_table_desc' or 'get_table_index', which likely retrieve different metadata about tables.

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 sibling tools such as 'get_table_desc' (which might retrieve table descriptions) or 'get_table_index' (which might retrieve table indexes), nor does it specify prerequisites like database connectivity or access permissions. The usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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