Investigate common SQL Server problems such as connection failures, performance bottlenecks, locking conflicts, and replication errors.
Debug common SQL Server issues
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issue | Yes | Issue to investigate | |
| logLevel | No | Accepted for compatibility; ignored | info |
| connectionString | No | SQL Server connection string (optional; requires --allow-tool-connection-string) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but 'Debug common SQL Server issues' does not say whether the tool runs read-only diagnostics, changes server state, requires a connection string, or what output to expect. The only behavioral detail is hidden in the schema's logLevel note that it is ignored.
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 sentence is short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, its brevity is partly under-specification: it skips purpose details, usage context, and behavior while only broadly naming the tool's intent.
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?
For a tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'debug' produces, whether side effects are possible, how connection string handling works, or how this differs from the extensive set of sibling tools.
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 100%, so the schema already explains 'issue', 'logLevel', and 'connectionString'. The main description adds no parameter semantics beyond the generic 'common SQL Server issues' phrase, yielding the baseline score.
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 a verb and resource ('Debug... SQL Server') and the issue enum (connection, performance, locks, replication) suggests scope, but 'common SQL Server issues' is vague and does not distinguish 'debug' from sibling tools like mssql_analyze_database or mssql_monitor_database.
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 given about when to choose this tool over the many sibling mssql_* tools. The enum values hint at problem categories, but the description never states conditions for use or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.