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 mentions the tool lists computed columns and formulas, but fails to describe key behaviors like whether it requires database permissions, if it's read-only, potential performance impacts, or output format details, which are critical for safe and effective use.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action, making it easy to parse, though it could be slightly more structured by including usage hints.

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 tools and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not cover behavioral aspects like safety, performance, or output format, and while parameters are documented in the schema, the overall context for proper tool selection and invocation is incomplete.

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 additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how parameters interact or typical use cases, resulting in a baseline score.

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 ('List computed columns and their formulas') and the resource ('computed columns'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'describe_table' or 'list_ables', which might also provide column information, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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. It lacks context such as whether it's for auditing, debugging, or schema analysis, and does not mention any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from 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.