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 offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the tool retrieves definitions but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit), potential performance impact, authentication needs (only hinted via connection parameters), or output format (e.g., SQL text). This is inadequate for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema.

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 without unnecessary words. Every part ('Get complete SQL definitions for all stored procedures in a schema') directly contributes to understanding, making it optimally concise and well-structured.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, performance), output format, or usage context relative to siblings. While the schema covers parameters, the description fails to compensate for missing annotations and output schema, leaving gaps for effective agent use.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying scope ('all stored procedures in a schema'), which aligns with the 'schema' parameter but doesn't elaborate on interactions like default values or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 complete SQL definitions') and resource ('all stored procedures in a schema'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_stored_procedure_definition' (singular) or 'get_multiple_stored_procedure_definitions', which handle specific procedures rather than all in a schema.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_stored_procedure_definition' for single procedures, 'get_multiple_stored_procedure_definitions' for a subset, or 'list_stored_procedures' for metadata only, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.

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