Microsoft SQL Server MCP Server (MSSQL)

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 mentions 'extract and analyze,' which implies a read-only operation, but does not specify if it requires specific permissions, how it handles errors, or what the output format looks like (e.g., structured data or summary). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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: 'Extract and analyze business rules from check constraints.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has no unnecessary words, and earns its place by clearly stating what the tool does without redundancy.

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 (analysis of constraints), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but does not address behavioral aspects like error handling, output format, or performance considerations. However, it is adequate as a starting point, though more detail would improve completeness for an analysis tool.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema with clear descriptions (e.g., 'SQL Server connection string'). The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters or default behaviors. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 tool's purpose: 'Extract and analyze business rules from check constraints.' It specifies both the action ('extract and analyze') and the resource ('business rules from check constraints'), making it easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_constraints' or 'list_default_constraints,' which might also involve constraints, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as when to prefer 'list_constraints' for a simple listing or 'analyze_database_size' for different analysis types. Without such guidance, users must 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.