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. It mentions 'comprehensive database size information' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impact on the database, authentication requirements implied by connection parameters, or output format. For a tool with connection parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 ('Get comprehensive database size information') and adds a clarifying detail ('including data and log file sizes'). There is zero waste, and every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 database analysis tools, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., read-only vs. write, performance impact), usage context compared to siblings, and what the output entails. For a tool with connection parameters and in a server with many similar tools, this minimal description leaves too many gaps for effective agent 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 100%, so the schema fully documents the two parameters (connectionString and connectionName). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying a database context. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'database size information', specifying it includes 'data and log file sizes'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like analyze_index_usage or analyze_table_stats by focusing on size metrics rather than performance or structure. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with tools like list_databases, which might also provide size-related info.

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 like list_databases or analyze_table_stats that might overlap in providing database metrics, there's no indication of specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent to guess based on the tool name alone.

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