Map a table's incoming and outgoing foreign-key relationships to show how it connects to other tables in an Oracle schema.
Explores how a table is connected to other tables (Outgoing and Incoming Foreign Keys).
Args: table_name: Table name. schema: Optional schema/owner name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| schema | No | ||
| table_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it never states that this is a read-only lookup, whether it requires permissions, or what scope of connections is returned (direct only vs. transitive). The only behavioral hint is the parenthetical about FK direction.
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 front-loaded in a single sentence and the arg list is compact. Nothing is padded, though the arg list largely duplicates the schema rather than adding value.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, for a tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema description coverage, the description should say more about what qualifies as a connection and how schema is resolved when omitted.
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, but it mostly restates parameter names: 'table_name: Table name' is tautological. It adds only marginal meaning by noting schema is optional and can be a schema/owner name, without explaining default resolution.
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 verb ('Explores how a table is connected') with a clear resource (a table's foreign keys), and clarifies directionality (outgoing and incoming FKs). An agent can distinguish it from describe_table, though the similar-sounding sibling get_schema_relationships is never mentioned.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'explores how a table is connected' implies the intent, but with a sibling named get_schema_relationships, the agent is left to guess which relationship tool to pick.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.