Scans PostgreSQL tables for dead-tuple bloat and ranks them by dead-to-live tuple ratio, helping prioritize vacuuming and storage reclamation.
[READ] Dead-tuple bloat proxy per table (dead / (live + dead)), worst first.
Args:
limit: Number of tables to inspect (default 50).
target: Target name from config; omit for the default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| target | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read, and the [READ] tag merely restates it. The description adds minor value with the metric definition and the fact that omitting target uses the default config, but says nothing about return format, cost, or rate behavior.
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 purpose sentence is front-loaded with the highest-value information (metric and ordering), followed by a compact Args block for the two parameters. No wasted sentences, though the bracketed [READ] tag is redundant with the annotation.
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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, metric, ordering, and both parameters adequately. Only return-value shape is unspecified, which is acceptable for a low-complexity read operation.
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 carry the parameter burden, and it does document both: limit is the number of tables inspected (default 50) and target is a config-defined name that defaults when omitted. This resolves the otherwise opaque "target" parameter.
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?
"Dead-tuple bloat proxy per table" states a specific verb/resource and even defines the metric (dead / (live + dead)) and ordering (worst first), which sets it apart from siblings like table_sizes and index_bloat. It does not explicitly contrast itself with bloat_and_vacuum_analysis, leaving that differentiation to inference.
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 [READ] tag and the metric description imply when the tool is useful (inspecting table bloat), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing against the closely related index_bloat or bloat_and_vacuum_analysis siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.