MSSQL MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this requires specific database permissions, if it's a heavy operation that might impact performance, what format the statistics are returned in, or if there are any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and contains no unnecessary elaboration or repetition.

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 tool's complexity (database analysis with 4 parameters), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like, what statistics are included, how results are formatted, or any behavioral considerations. For a database analysis tool with no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about the return values and operational characteristics.

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 documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how parameters interact, which combinations are valid, or provide usage examples. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 with specific verbs ('Get table row counts, size information, and last update statistics'), identifying the resource (table statistics) and what information is retrieved. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'describe_table' or 'analyze_data_distribution', which might provide 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'describe_table', 'analyze_data_distribution', 'list_tables'), the description offers no context about when this specific statistical analysis tool is appropriate or what distinguishes it from other analysis tools.

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