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 states 'List projections for a table,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, rate limits, whether it returns all projections or a subset, or how it handles errors. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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: 'List projections for a table.' It's front-loaded with the core action and target, with zero wasted words. This is appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity, 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 (a read operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'projections' are, the return format, or any behavioral context. For a tool that might involve database-specific concepts, this leaves too many unknowns for 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?

The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It doesn't explain what 'projections' are or how the parameters relate to them (e.g., if table_name refers to a specific database table). With two parameters (table_name and schema_name) and no schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters semantically unclear.

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 'List projections for a table' clearly states the action (list) and target (projections for a table), but it's vague about what 'projections' means in this context (e.g., column subsets, materialized views, or database-specific structures). It doesn't differentiate from siblings like get_table_structure or get_schema_tables, which might overlap in scope. This provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for metadata retrieval, performance analysis, or how it differs from siblings like get_table_structure or execute_query_paginated. The description implies usage for listing projections but offers no context on prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions.

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