MSSQL MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what information is retrieved without disclosing behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impact, authentication requirements, or error handling. It mentions 'detailed information' but doesn't specify format or limitations.

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 trigger') and adds specific details ('including its definition and events') without unnecessary elaboration. Every word serves a clear purpose with zero waste.

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?

For a read operation with 4 parameters (1 required) and 100% schema coverage but no output schema or annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks information about return format, error conditions, or behavioral constraints that would be important for agent usage. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally address return values.

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 4 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3. It implies 'triggerName' is central but doesn't elaborate on parameter interactions.

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 action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific trigger'), specifying what information is retrieved ('including its definition and events'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_triggers' (which lists triggers) by focusing on detailed description of a single trigger, though it doesn't explicitly name 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 when detailed trigger information is needed, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_triggers' or other describe_* tools. It provides some context through the parameter 'triggerName' requirement, but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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