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 only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, whether results are paginated, what format the output takes, or any rate limits. For a database query tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 states the core purpose upfront with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward list operation and gets directly to the point.

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?

For a database query tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what information is returned about each trigger, how results are structured, whether there are performance considerations for large databases, or what happens when no triggers exist. The description should provide more context given the complexity of the operation.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description mentions 'associated tables' which relates to the tableName parameter for filtering, but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the 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 'List' and the resource 'all triggers in the database', specifying they come 'with their associated tables'. It distinguishes from generic list tools by focusing on triggers, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'describe_trigger' which might provide detailed information about a single trigger.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'describe_trigger' (for detailed info on a single trigger) or other list tools. The description mentions filtering by table name but doesn't explain when this filtering is appropriate or how it compares to other filtering options.

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