MSSQL MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it retrieves source code but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, potential permissions needed, error handling, or output format details. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 the complete SQL query/definition of a stored procedure') and adds clarifying detail ('this is the actual source code'). There is zero waste, making it appropriately sized 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 no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that retrieves source code (which may involve permissions and formatting), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context, output details, and usage guidelines, making it inadequate for a tool with 5 parameters and sibling alternatives.

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 parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or default behaviors. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 resource ('complete SQL query/definition of a stored procedure'), specifying it retrieves the actual source code. It distinguishes from siblings like 'describe_stored_procedure' (likely metadata) and 'get_all_stored_procedure_definitions' (multiple procedures).

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 retrieving source code, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'describe_stored_procedure' or 'get_all_stored_procedure_definitions'. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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