Create new tables in MSSQL databases by defining table names and column structures with SQL types and constraints for database schema management.
Creates a new table in the MSSQL Database with the specified columns.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tableName | Yes | Name of the table to create | |
| columns | Yes | Array of column definitions (e.g., [{ name: 'id', type: 'INT PRIMARY KEY' }, ...]) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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. While 'Creates' implies a write operation, it doesn't specify critical details like whether this requires admin permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on conflicts, or error handling. For a database mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, 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 of a database table creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on permissions, error cases, return values, or how it interacts with sibling tools, leaving the agent with incomplete context for safe and 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 mentions 'specified columns' which aligns with the 'columns' parameter, but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly, so the description meets the baseline without enhancing parameter understanding.
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 action ('Creates') and resource ('new table in the MSSQL Database'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_index' or 'insert_data', which would require more specific context about when to create a table versus other operations.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., database permissions), when not to use it (e.g., if a table already exists), or refer to sibling tools like 'drop_table' for cleanup or 'list_table' for checking existing tables.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.