Vertica MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions caching, which adds some context about performance or data freshness, but fails to cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential side effects, error handling, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with database schemas.

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 very concise with a single sentence, making it easy to parse. However, it could be more front-loaded by explicitly stating the tool's core function before mentioning caching, but it's still efficient with zero wasted words.

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 database operations, no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, caching implications, and how it differs from sibling tools, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic details. The description adds no information about the 'schema_name' parameter, such as what it represents, valid values, or default behavior beyond the schema's default. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 ('List') and resource ('views in schema'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_schema_tables' or 'get_table_structure', 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 like 'get_schema_tables' or 'get_database_schemas'. It mentions caching but doesn't explain when this is beneficial or if there are trade-offs, leaving the agent with minimal usage context.

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