MS SQL Server MCP Server

mssql_analyze_storage

Read-only

Analyze largest tables by row count and storage size, plus database file sizes, to plan capacity and identify space hogs.

Instructions

Analyze storage: largest tables by size (row count, total/used MB) and database file sizes. Useful for capacity planning and finding space hogs.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "mssql_analyze_storage"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`topTables`	No	Number of largest tables to return (default: 20)
`response_format`	No	Response format (default: markdown)	markdown

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.1Jul 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not contradict them. It adds value by detailing what is analyzed (largest tables, file sizes) beyond the annotations. No additional behavioral traits are disclosed, but the description is consistent and provides useful context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that effectively communicates the tool's purpose and output. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, with no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite no output schema, the description explicitly lists the output elements (row count, total/used MB for tables, database file sizes). It covers the needed context for an analysis tool with simple parameters. Parameter coverage is complete, and the description is sufficient for understanding what the tool returns.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, meaning both parameters (topTables, response_format) have descriptions in the input schema. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only implies that topTables refers to largest tables by size. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it analyzes storage, specifically largest tables by size (row count, total/used MB) and database file sizes. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like mssql_analyze_indexes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description mentions 'useful for capacity planning and finding space hogs', providing a clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives, which would improve guidance.

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

Deploy Server