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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it lists triggers 'with their associated tables,' hinting at output structure, but lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or error handling for a database tool, which is a significant gap for safe operation.

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 with zero waste—it directly states the action and scope. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a listing tool, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It clarifies the purpose but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details, making it incomplete for safe and effective use, though not critically so.

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 meaning beyond implying filtering by table via 'associated tables,' but this is already covered in the schema's 'tableName' description. Baseline 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 triggers in the database'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'describe_trigger' by focusing on listing rather than describing details, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other listing tools like 'list_tables' or 'list_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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a connection), compare to siblings like 'describe_trigger' for detailed info, or specify scenarios where filtering by table is useful, leaving usage context unclear.

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