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 'improved error handling', which hints at robustness, but doesn't specify what errors are handled, how they're reported, or any other behavioral traits like performance impact, side effects, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to inform the agent about its operational characteristics.

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 concise with a single sentence, 'Profile query execution with improved error handling.' It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it efficient to parse. However, it's under-specified rather than optimally concise, as it lacks necessary details 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 (a query profiling tool with 2 parameters), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what profiling entails (e.g., returns performance metrics, logs), how errors are handled, or the tool's role among siblings. For a tool that likely involves system interaction, more context is needed to guide 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no information about parameters beyond what's in the schema (e.g., 'query' and 'timeout'). It doesn't explain what a 'query' entails (e.g., SQL, API call), what 'timeout' units are, or default behaviors. With 2 parameters and 0% coverage, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Profile query execution with improved error handling' states a vague purpose but lacks specificity. It mentions 'profile query execution' which suggests analyzing query performance, but doesn't specify what resource is being profiled (e.g., database queries, system performance). It doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'execute_query_paginated' or 'run_query_safely' which might also handle queries. The description is better than a tautology but remains ambiguous about scope.

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. With siblings like 'execute_query_paginated', 'execute_query_stream', and 'run_query_safely', the description doesn't explain when profiling is preferred over execution, or what 'improved error handling' entails compared to other tools. This leaves the agent without clear direction on tool selection in context.

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