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 states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't describe authentication needs (e.g., via connectionString or connectionName), potential rate limits, error handling, or what the output format looks like (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool with database access and 5 parameters, this leaves significant gaps.

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 detailed information about a specific stored procedure') and adds specific details ('including parameters and definition'). There is zero waste, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 5 parameters (with 100% schema coverage), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose but lacks behavioral context (e.g., authentication, output format) and usage guidelines versus siblings. For a database metadata tool with multiple similar siblings, more completeness would be helpful.

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 all 5 parameters with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying that 'parameters and definition' are retrieved, which aligns with the 'includeDefinition' parameter but doesn't provide extra context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource ('detailed information about a specific stored procedure'), specifying what information is retrieved ('parameters and definition'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_stored_procedures' (which lists names) and 'get_stored_procedure_definition' (which might only return the definition), but doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

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 implies usage for retrieving detailed metadata about a specific stored procedure, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_stored_procedure_definition' or 'get_all_stored_procedure_definitions'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts.

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