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 states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what the output format might be (e.g., list of columns, report), whether it requires specific permissions, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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: 'Identify common audit trail patterns (created/modified dates, user tracking)'. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes clarifying examples in parentheses. There is zero waste, and every word 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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose clearly but lacks context on behavior, output, or usage relative to siblings. With no output schema, the description doesn't explain return values, and with no annotations, it misses safety or operational details. It's complete enough for basic understanding but has clear gaps for effective agent use.

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 three parameters (connectionString, connectionName, schema) with their descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how parameters interact (e.g., precedence between connectionString and connectionName) or what 'audit trail patterns' entail in terms of parameter usage. Baseline 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 tool's purpose: 'Identify common audit trail patterns (created/modified dates, user tracking)'. It specifies the verb 'identify' and the resource 'audit trail patterns', making it distinct from siblings like 'analyze_null_patterns' or 'describe_table'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'find_computed_columns' or 'list_constraints', which could also involve column analysis.

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 prerequisites (e.g., database connection), exclusions (e.g., non-SQL Server databases), or compare it to siblings like 'analyze_null_patterns' for other column types. Usage is implied through the action 'identify', but no explicit context is given.

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