mssql_autogrowth_issuesFind SQL Server data and log files with autogrowth issues—percent growth, tiny increments (1 MB or less), or autogrowth off—largest first. Not available on Azure SQL Database.
Autogrowth issues: data and log files with percent growth, tiny growth (1 MB or less) or autogrowth off, largest files first. Not available on Azure SQL Database.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: the exact issue-detection thresholds (percent growth, ≤1 MB, autogrowth off), the output ordering, and a platform availability restriction.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the diagnostic criteria, then ordering, then the platform caveat. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, every clause carries information.
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?
With no output schema, the description must convey the return shape, and it does reasonably well (data and log files matching the three issue conditions, ordered largest first). It stops short of saying whether results span all databases on the instance and what columns come back, which would fully close the gap.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The absence of any scope parameter also implicitly tells the agent the scan is instance-wide rather than targeted at one database.
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 names the resource (data and log file autogrowth) and the precise conditions that make a file an 'issue': percent growth, growth of 1 MB or less, or autogrowth disabled, plus the result ordering (largest first). That is specific enough to separate it from neighbors like mssql_storage_capacity or mssql_vlf_counts, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this when diagnosing autogrowth misconfiguration, but there is no stated when-to-use versus mssql_storage_capacity or other storage tools. The only explicit scoping statement is the platform exclusion 'Not available on Azure SQL Database.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.