Vertica 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 'improved error handling and formatting,' which adds some context about reliability and output presentation, but fails to specify what 'status' includes (e.g., uptime, connections, performance metrics), whether it requires permissions, or if it's safe to use frequently. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with zero 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 core purpose ('Get database status') and adds value with additional context ('with improved error handling and formatting'). There is no wasted verbiage, and every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's functionality.

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 (simple, no parameters) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does and hints at behavioral traits, but doesn't fully compensate for the missing structured data—e.g., it doesn't explain what 'status' entails or the format of the output. This makes it complete enough for basic use but with clear gaps.

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 the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids discussing any. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't mislead about inputs.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('database status'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_system_performance' or 'generate_health_dashboard', which might provide overlapping or related functionality.

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. With siblings like 'analyze_system_performance' and 'generate_health_dashboard' that might offer similar status or health information, there's no indication of when this specific tool is preferred, nor any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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