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 for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'basic information' but doesn't specify what that includes (e.g., names, schemas, creation dates) or behavioral aspects like pagination, error handling, or performance implications. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 4 parameters.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema) and rich sibling context, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'basic information' includes, how results are formatted, or when to choose this over similar tools, leaving the agent with incomplete operational context.

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. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters or default behaviors. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('stored procedures, functions, and their basic information'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_functions', 'get_all_stored_procedure_definitions', or 'search_stored_procedures_by_content', which prevents a perfect score.

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. With many sibling tools like 'list_functions', 'get_all_stored_procedure_definitions', and 'search_stored_procedures_by_content', the agent is left to infer usage context without explicit direction.

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