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 mentions 'with caching', which hints at performance behavior, but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it's read-only, safe, requires permissions, rate limits, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 with a single sentence that front-loads the core action ('List tables in schema') and adds a key detail ('with caching'). There's zero waste or redundancy, making it efficient and 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 (a database query tool with caching), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or how caching affects results, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively in context.

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 doesn't add any meaning beyond the input schema—no explanation of what 'schema_name' represents, default usage, or how caching interacts with parameters. With 1 parameter undocumented in both schema and description, the description fails to provide necessary semantic context.

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 ('tables in schema'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_schema_views' by specifying tables, but doesn't fully differentiate from 'get_table_structure' or 'get_table_projections' which might also involve tables. The mention of 'with caching' adds specificity but doesn't fully clarify uniqueness.

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 when to choose this over 'get_schema_views' for views, 'get_table_structure' for detailed info, or 'execute_query_paginated' for custom queries. There's no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with minimal direction.

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