describe_tableRetrieve complete metadata for a database table, including its columns, primary key, and indexes, to understand its structure before querying.
Return full metadata for table_name: columns, primary key, and indexes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| connection | No | ||
| table_name | Yes |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only operation by saying 'Return full metadata', which suggests no side effects. However, it does not disclose potential errors (e.g., missing table), permission requirements, or performance implications. The description is simple and likely safe, but lacks explicit safety statements.
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 that front-loads the action and specifies the exact metadata returned. No filler or redundant phrasing.
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 an output schema exists (so return format is defined), the description is largely complete for a metadata-retrieval tool. It specifies the key output elements (columns, primary key, indexes). The main gap is lack of guidance on the 'connection' parameter and any error conditions, but these are secondary given the tool's simplicity.
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 description clarifies that table_name is the target table, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, the optional 'connection' parameter is not explained at all, and with schema coverage at 0% (meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema), the description only partially compensates. It gives context for one of two parameters but leaves the other 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 states a specific verb ('Return'), a resource ('metadata for table_name'), and enumerates the exact content (columns, primary key, indexes). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_indexes (which only returns indexes) and schema_definitions (which likely covers broader 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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or conditions that would make this the preferred choice. The reader must infer that full metadata is desired, but no explicit routing is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.