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 'batching and size limits', which hints at performance characteristics, but fails to describe critical behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, potential side effects, error handling, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a query execution tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently mentions key features. Every word earns its place, 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 the complexity of a query execution tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, performance implications, and how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool that likely handles data retrieval with streaming, more context is needed for safe and effective use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'batching and size limits', which loosely relates to 'batch_size' and 'max_rows' parameters, but doesn't explain the meaning or usage of 'query' or 'timeout'. The description adds some value by hinting at parameter purposes but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, resulting in a baseline score.

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: 'Stream query results with batching and size limits.' It specifies the verb ('stream') and resource ('query results'), and mentions key operational aspects (batching, size limits). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'execute_query_paginated' or 'run_query_safely', which prevents a perfect score.

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 sibling tools like 'execute_query_paginated' and 'run_query_safely' available, there's no indication of when streaming is preferred over pagination or safe execution, nor any mention of prerequisites or constraints for usage.

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