MSSQL MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves definitions but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get'), potential side effects (e.g., database load), authentication needs (hinted by connection parameters but not explicit), or output format (e.g., SQL text, metadata inclusion). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with a database.

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 complete SQL definitions for multiple stored procedures at once') with zero wasted words. It avoids redundancy and is 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 the tool's complexity (database interaction, 5 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., structured data vs. raw SQL), error handling, or behavioral constraints (e.g., read-only nature, connection requirements). For a tool with no structured safety or output information, more descriptive context is needed.

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. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify parameter interactions or default behaviors). The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra context.

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 ('multiple stored procedures at once'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_stored_procedure_definition' by specifying 'multiple... at once' and from 'get_all_stored_procedure_definitions' by implying selective retrieval rather than fetching all. However, it doesn't explicitly name these distinctions.

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 like 'get_stored_procedure_definition' (single procedure) or 'get_all_stored_procedure_definitions' (all procedures). It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., connection setup) or typical use cases (e.g., batch analysis), leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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