mcp_execute_procedure

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 the tool executes stored procedures and returns results, but lacks details on permissions required, transaction handling, error behavior, or output format. This is a significant gap for a tool that performs database operations.

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 functionality without unnecessary words. It directly communicates the tool's purpose and scope, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 executing stored procedures in SQL Server, the description is insufficient. With no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete behavioral details, it fails to address critical aspects like security requirements, result formatting, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it effectively.

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 both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'parameters and return results,' but doesn't provide additional context on parameter formatting, validation, or result structure. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 action ('Execute') and resource ('SQL Server stored procedure'), specifying it handles parameters and returns results. It distinguishes from generic query execution tools but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'mcp_execute_query' beyond the stored procedure focus.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'mcp_execute_query' for direct SQL queries or 'mcp_sp_structure' for examining stored procedures. The description implies usage for stored procedures but offers no context on prerequisites, limitations, or comparative use cases.

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