Detect redundant MySQL indexes whose columns form a leading prefix of another index, so DBAs can remove duplicates and reduce storage and write overhead.
[READ] Indexes whose columns are a leading prefix of another index (dupes).
Args: target: Target name from config; omit for the default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the '[READ]' tag merely repeats that. The description does add genuine behavioral value by defining the detection rule (leading-prefix duplication), which is not derivable from annotations or schema. It stops short of describing the result shape or how many indexes 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?
Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by a minimal Args block; nothing superfluous. The '[READ]' prefix is slightly redundant against readOnlyHint=true, but the footprint is small and well structured.
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 zero-required-param, single-target read tool with no output schema, the definition covers what is found and how the target is selected. The missing piece is what a returned redundant index record contains, but that gap is minor at this complexity level.
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 bears the burden — and it meets it: it explains that target is a name sourced from config and that omitting it selects the default. That is real added meaning over a bare string-or-null property with default null, though the exact config key or format is not illustrated.
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 (indexes) and the precise criterion that makes them redundant: columns forming a leading prefix of another index. That is far more informative than a restated name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling unused_indexes or index_stats, which keeps it from a 5.
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 never says when to run this versus unused_indexes, index_stats, or fragmentation_analysis — all plausible neighbors in an index-hygiene workflow. The only usage-adjacent text is the 'omit for the default' note on target, which is parameter guidance, not tool selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.