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 'caching support,' which hints at performance optimization, but fails to describe key traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential side effects, error handling, or how caching works (e.g., cache duration, invalidation). This leaves significant gaps in understanding 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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Get table structure with caching support,' which is front-loaded and wastes no words. Every part of the sentence contributes to the tool's purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse, though it may be overly brief for clarity.

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 database tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'table structure' includes, how caching operates, error conditions, or return values. For a tool that likely returns metadata, this minimal description does not provide enough context 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not add any meaning to the parameters 'table_name' and 'schema_name.' It does not explain what these parameters represent, their expected formats, or how they affect the output. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters largely undocumented.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'Get table structure with caching support,' which includes a verb ('Get') and resource ('table structure'), making it clear what it does at a basic level. However, it lacks specificity about what 'table structure' entails (e.g., columns, data types, constraints) and does not differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get_schema_tables' or 'get_table_projections,' leaving room for ambiguity.

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 mentions 'caching support' but does not explain when caching is beneficial or when to choose this over other tools like 'get_schema_tables' or 'execute_query_paginated' for similar purposes. There is no explicit mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or recommended contexts.

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