schema_definitions"Retrieve column metadata (name, type, nullability, default, primary key) for a specified CUBRID table to understand its structure."
Return column metadata for table_name: name, type, nullability, default, PK flag.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the output contract by listing the returned metadata fields, and 'Return' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not describe behavior for missing tables, connection handling, or whether results are live or cached.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the exact returned fields with no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes useful 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?
For a simple two-parameter metadata tool with an output schema, the basic call is understandable. But the optional connection parameter is left unexplained and there is no guidance for selecting this tool over the many schema-related siblings, so an agent could still misuse it or pick a sibling.
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 gives meaning to table_name as the target table, but the connection parameter is completely unexplained in both the schema and the description. Only one of two parameters receives any semantic clarification.
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?
Describes a specific action ('Return column metadata for table_name') and enumerates the returned fields: name, type, nullability, default, PK flag. It is clear on its own but does not differentiate from schema-related siblings like describe_table or list_indexes.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus describe_table, list_indexes, all_table_names, or other schema-related siblings. The intended usage is only implied by the description; no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.