IT Tools MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, indicating this is not a read-only operation, but the description doesn't add behavioral context beyond the basic action. It doesn't disclose if formatting is reversible, if it requires specific permissions, or any rate limits. However, it doesn't contradict annotations, and the simple nature of formatting makes extensive behavioral details less critical.

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 functionality ('Format and prettify SQL queries') with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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 simple formatting tool with no output schema and minimal behavioral complexity, the description is adequate but basic. It covers the 'what' but lacks context on usage scenarios, error handling, or output format. Given the tool's simplicity and good schema coverage, it's minimally viable but could benefit from slight elaboration.

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 100%, with clear documentation for both parameters (sql and dialect). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of SQL input or dialect implications. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 with specific verbs ('format and prettify') and resource ('SQL queries'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling formatting tools like format_json or format_xml, though the SQL focus is inherently distinct.

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 prerequisites, limitations, or compare it to other formatting tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent to infer usage context solely from the tool name and description.

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