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 the tool lists functions but doesn't describe output format, pagination, error handling, or authentication requirements. The description lacks details on what 'list all' entails (e.g., scope, limitations), leaving behavioral traits unclear for an agent.

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: 'List all user-defined functions (scalar, table-valued, etc.)'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes helpful examples without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output, or usage context. For a read-only listing tool with full parameter documentation, it's passable but leaves gaps in guiding an agent effectively.

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 4 parameters with descriptions and an enum. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying filtering by function types (e.g., 'scalar, table-valued, etc.'), which aligns with the 'functionType' parameter. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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: 'List all user-defined functions (scalar, table-valued, etc.)'. It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('user-defined functions'), and includes examples of function types. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_stored_procedures' or 'list_views', though the resource type distinction is implicit.

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 'list_stored_procedures' or 'describe_stored_procedure', nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts where this tool is preferred. Usage is implied by the name and purpose but not explicitly stated.

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