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 full burden. It states the action ('List all constraints') but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify output format (e.g., list, table, JSON), pagination, error handling, permissions required, or performance implications. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for missing annotations.

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?

Single sentence that is efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., by explicitly mentioning parameters). It earns its place by clearly stating 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters and database interaction. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (critical for a 'list' operation), error conditions, or connection requirements. For a read operation with potential complexity, more context is needed.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying filtering by constraint type ('check, unique, foreign key, etc.'), which aligns with the 'constraintType' enum. 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 verb ('List') and resource ('all constraints'), specifying constraint types like check, unique, foreign key, etc. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_default_constraints' by covering all constraint types, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other constraint-related tools like 'analyze_check_constraints'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer 'list_constraints' over 'list_default_constraints' or 'analyze_check_constraints', nor does it provide context about prerequisites like needing a valid connection. Usage is implied by the description but not articulated.

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