list_indexesLists indexes for a specified table, showing key columns and flags to support query optimization.
Return indexes for table_name with their key columns and flags.
CUBRID supports index hints: USE INDEX (idx_name), FORCE INDEX, USING INDEX. See cubrid://guide/performance for hint usage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| connection | No | ||
| table_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 only states that indexes are returned with key columns and flags, but does not mention any side effects, permission requirements, error behavior, or whether it is a read-only operation. The hint usage note is not about the tool's behavior but about CUBRID SQL features.
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 core purpose is stated in one concise, front-loaded sentence. However, the second sentence about index hints and a guide link is tangential, diluting focus. It is not verbose, but the extra information is not directly relevant to the tool's primary function.
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 that an output schema exists (which likely describes the return format), the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks any mention of the optional connection parameter, usage conditions, or edge cases. For a simple list operation it is minimally adequate, but not complete.
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 description must compensate. It explains 'table_name' by referencing it in the purpose, but the 'connection' parameter is entirely undocumented. With a 0% coverage baseline, leaving one of two parameters unexplained is a significant gap.
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 action ('Return indexes'), the resource ('for ``table_name``'), and the output content ('key columns and flags'). It is specific and unambiguous, and the resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like describe_table and schema_definitions.
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 does not mention any selection criteria, exclusions, or prerequisites. The mention of index hints and a performance guide is tangential and does not explain when to choose list_indexes over describe_table or explain_query.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.