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. It adds value by disclosing caching behavior, which is a useful trait beyond basic functionality. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'List' entails (e.g., format, pagination). For a tool with no annotations, this is a moderate but incomplete disclosure.

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 action ('List database schemas') and adds a key behavioral trait ('with caching') without waste. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and a behavioral trait (caching), but for a tool that likely returns a list of schemas, more context on output format or usage scenarios would improve completeness. It's minimally viable but not fully informative.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it doesn't contradict the schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't introduce confusion.

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 ('List') and resource ('database schemas'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like get_schema_tables or get_schema_views by focusing on schemas rather than their contents. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., database_status might overlap in scope), keeping it from 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 like get_schema_tables or database_status. It mentions caching, which hints at performance considerations, but doesn't specify when caching applies or when to avoid it. Without explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, the score is low.

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