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 states it's a listing operation, which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't mention any side effects, performance characteristics, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, pagination). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (a database listing tool with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output contains (e.g., table names, metadata), how results are formatted, or any behavioral constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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 fully documents all three parameters (connectionString, connectionName, schema) with their descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage, resulting in the baseline score of 3.

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 ('List') and resource ('all tables in the connected database'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_databases' or 'list_views', which are conceptually similar listing operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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. With many sibling tools like 'describe_table', 'list_databases', and 'list_views' that might serve related purposes, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for this specific listing operation.

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