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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: executes multiple statements sequentially and stops at the first error. This provides important context about transaction-like behavior and error handling that isn't captured elsewhere. However, it doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or what happens on success.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that communicates both the core functionality and a critical behavioral constraint. Every word earns its place, with no wasted verbiage. The structure is front-loaded with the main purpose followed by the important behavioral detail.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values) and only one parameter, the description provides good contextual completeness. It covers the key behavioral aspects (sequential execution, error stopping) that aren't captured in structured fields. For a single-parameter tool with output schema, this is reasonably complete, though it could mention permissions or other constraints.

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 doesn't explicitly mention the 'script' parameter or explain its format, content requirements, or syntax. However, the description implies the parameter contains multiple SQL statements, which adds some semantic context beyond the bare schema.

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 múltiples sentencias SQL en secuencia' (executes multiple SQL statements in sequence). It specifies the verb (execute) and resource (SQL statements) with additional detail about sequential execution. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sql_run' which might handle single statements.

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 implied usage guidance through the phrase 'se detiene al primer error' (stops at the first error), suggesting this tool is appropriate for batch operations where atomic execution is desired. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'sql_run' or provide any exclusion criteria.

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