Microsoft SQL Server MCP Server (MSSQL)

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 it retrieves the 'complete SQL query/definition'. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's read-only, potential rate limits, or what happens on errors. The description is minimal beyond the basic 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 front-loads the core purpose ('Get the complete SQL query/definition') and adds clarifying detail ('actual source code'). There's zero waste, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 read operation with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on return format (e.g., raw SQL string), error handling, or prerequisites. Given the schema's good coverage and no annotations, it's minimally viable but could be more complete.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying 'procedureName' format or 'connectionString' security implications. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 ('Get') and resource ('complete SQL query/definition of a stored procedure'), specifying it's the 'actual source code'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'describe_stored_procedure' (which likely provides metadata) and 'get_all_stored_procedure_definitions' (which retrieves multiple).

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 implies usage for retrieving SQL source code, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'describe_stored_procedure' or 'get_all_stored_procedure_definitions'. It provides some context but lacks clear exclusions or comparative guidance.

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