MSSQL 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 'Get data distribution patterns' but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how it handles large datasets, or what the output format looks like. For a database analysis tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unclear.

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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. It avoids redundancy and waste, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the database context implied by the parameters.

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 analysis tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output format, which are essential for an agent to effectively invoke this tool in a database environment with many sibling alternatives.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond implying analysis of columns for data quality, which is already covered by the tool's purpose. This meets the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 tool's purpose as 'Get data distribution patterns for columns to understand data quality and patterns', which specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('data distribution patterns for columns'), and goal ('understand data quality and patterns'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'analyze_table_stats' or 'sample_data', which might have overlapping functionality.

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. With many sibling tools focused on database analysis (e.g., 'analyze_table_stats', 'sample_data', 'describe_table'), there's no indication of specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for this tool, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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