MCP SQL Server

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 this executes SQL statements but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's read-only or destructive, authentication requirements, transaction behavior, error handling, or rate limits. For a SQL execution tool, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.

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 in Spanish that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the key detail about optional named parameters without any unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 (SQL execution with parameters), lack of annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. However, the presence of an output schema means the agent can infer return values from structured data, raising the baseline. The description covers the basic action but misses critical behavioral and usage 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds some value by explaining that 'params' are 'parámetros nombrados opcionales' (optional named parameters), but it doesn't clarify the format of 'statement' (e.g., SQL dialect, allowed operations) or provide examples. It partially compensates but leaves key details undocumented.

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: 'Ejecuta una sentencia SQL individual usando parámetros nombrados opcionales' (Executes a single SQL statement using optional named parameters). It specifies the verb ('ejecuta'), resource ('sentencia SQL'), and scope ('individual'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like sql_run_script.

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 sibling tools like sql_run_script (for scripts vs. single statements) or sql_list_tables/sql_describe_table (for metadata queries), leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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