mssql_table_missing_indexesIdentifies missing indexes for specified SQL Server tables, ranked by improvement score, so DBAs can prioritize schema tuning.
Missing indexes for the given tables, ranked by improvement score.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tableNames | Yes | List of table names to check. | |
| databaseName | No | Target database. Defaults to connected database. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, read-only, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are ranked by improvement score, which hints at output shape, but says nothing about cost of running it, empty results, or how many recommendations are returned.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the scope qualifier comes before the ranking detail. It is slightly terse for the amount of routing information an agent needs.
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 carries some burden for describing the return payload; 'ranked by improvement score' gives a partial signal but omits the shape of each recommendation (columns, indexes, impact). For a two-parameter read-only diagnostic tool it is minimally adequate.
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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the database default behavior. The description's 'given tables' merely mirrors tableNames and adds no format, casing, or qualification guidance. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific resource and scope: 'Missing indexes for the given tables', with the ranking basis ('improvement score') disclosed. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling mssql_db_missing_indexes, so an agent must infer the table-scoped vs database-scoped split from the input schema.
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 phrase 'for the given tables' implies the usage context (use when you have specific tables in hand), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as mssql_db_missing_indexes for a whole-database scan. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.