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 it's a listing operation, implying it's likely read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't confirm this or add context like authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'basic information' entails. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral details beyond the core action.

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 unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, and every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 moderate complexity (listing database views with 4 optional parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, usage context, or output format, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's effective use without further inference or trial.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters or clarifying 'basic information'. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema handles the heavy lifting without additional value from the description.

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 ('views in the database') with scope ('all views' and 'basic information'), making the purpose specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'describe_view' or 'list_tables', which would require mentioning what distinguishes listing views from describing or listing other database objects.

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 'describe_view' (for detailed view info) or 'list_tables' (for listing tables instead), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage, leaving the agent without explicit direction on tool selection.

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