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 mentions 'basic information' but doesn't specify what that includes (e.g., view names, schemas, creation dates). It also doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, or how results are formatted/paginated.

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 gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It could potentially be improved with more specific information about what 'basic information' includes, but it's appropriately concise for its current content.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'basic information' includes in the return values, doesn't mention behavioral constraints, and provides no context about how this differs from related tools. The 100% schema coverage helps, but the description itself lacks completeness.

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 already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which is acceptable but not exceptional - meeting the baseline 3 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 ('all views in the database'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'describe_view' or 'list_tables', which would require more specific scope information to earn a 5.

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 sibling tools like 'describe_view' (detailed view info) and 'list_tables' (similar listing for tables), there's no indication of when this listing tool is preferred over other analysis or description tools.

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