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 tests a connection and returns server information, but it doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential side effects (e.g., logging or network traffic), error handling, or rate limits. For a tool that interacts with a database, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the main action and outcome, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. This is an excellent example of 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 complexity of database operations and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'basic server information' includes, how errors are handled, or any dependencies. For a tool that could involve network calls and authentication, more context is needed to ensure safe and effective use by an agent.

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 both parameters ('connectionString' and 'connectionName') with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or usage tips. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

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: 'Test the database connection and return basic server information.' It specifies the verb ('test') and resource ('database connection') with an outcome ('return basic server information'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_connections' or 'execute_query', which might involve connection testing indirectly, so it's not a perfect 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as whether a connection must be established first, or compare it to siblings like 'list_connections' for checking available connections or 'execute_query' for testing with a query. This lack of context leaves the agent to guess based on the tool name alone.

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