MCP SQL Server

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 describes configuration and operations, implying a read-only, informational function, but doesn't specify details like whether it requires authentication, returns structured data, or has any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, concise sentence in Spanish: 'Describe la configuración activa y operaciones soportadas.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 (0 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, or how it differs from siblings. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but overall, it's incomplete for effective agent use without additional 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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). In such cases, the baseline score is 4, as there's no need for the description to compensate for missing parameter information. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but that's acceptable given the lack of parameters.

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: 'Describe la configuración activa y operaciones soportadas' (Describe active configuration and supported operations). It uses a specific verb ('describe') and identifies the resource ('active configuration and supported operations'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like sql_describe_table or sql_list_tables, 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. There are multiple sibling SQL tools (sql_describe_table, sql_list_tables, sql_run, sql_run_script), but the description doesn't indicate when sql_capabilities is appropriate compared to these other tools. No context or exclusions are mentioned.

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