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 the tool retrieves information (a read operation), but does not mention permissions required, rate limits, whether it's safe for production use, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 schema information') and specifies key details (table, columns, data types, constraints). There is no wasted verbiage, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, 1 required) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters indirectly via the schema, but fails to address behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or output format, which are important for a database tool.

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 input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify parameter interactions or provide examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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 the resource 'detailed schema information for a specific table', specifying what information is retrieved (columns, data types, constraints). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_tables' (which lists names) and 'analyze_table_stats' (which provides performance metrics), making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 obtaining schema details of a table, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_tables' (for names only) or 'get_relationships' (for foreign keys). It provides basic context but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or named alternatives.

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