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. It mentions 'usage statistics and detailed information', implying read-only behavior and output details, but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it requires specific permissions, potential performance impact on the database, rate limits, or error handling. For a tool with 5 parameters and 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 that front-loads the core purpose ('List all indexes on tables') and adds key details ('with usage statistics and detailed information'). There's zero waste, and every word earns its place by specifying scope and output characteristics 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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and output scope but lacks completeness for a tool that interacts with databases: it doesn't explain return format, error conditions, or dependencies on other tools like 'list_connections'. With no output schema, the description should ideally hint at what 'detailed information' includes, but it doesn't, leaving gaps in contextual understanding.

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 additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions (e.g., how 'connectionString' and 'connectionName' relate) or providing examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 action ('List all indexes') and resource ('on tables'), specifying the scope includes 'usage statistics and detailed information'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_tables' or 'analyze_index_usage' by focusing on indexes rather than tables or usage analysis alone. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'find_missing_indexes' or 'list_constraints', which could overlap in purpose.

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 'analyze_index_usage' for deeper analysis, 'find_missing_indexes' for optimization, or 'list_constraints' for related metadata. There's no context on prerequisites, such as needing a connection, or exclusions for specific database types.

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