Inspect a SQLite table's schema, column types, primary and foreign keys to understand its structure before writing queries or migrations.
Introspect table schema, column types, primary keys, and foreign keys.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| db_path | Yes | Path to SQLite database file. | |
| table_name | Yes | Name of the table to inspect. |
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 burden. 'Introspect' signals a non-mutating read, and because there is no output schema, naming the returned fields (column types, PKs, FKs) is genuinely valuable. But it says nothing about behavior on a missing table or whether views/indexes are covered.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and terminated by the concrete return fields. No waste, though the bare enumeration reads slightly like a field list rather than prose guidance.
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 two-parameter read-only introspection tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential shape of what comes back. The gaps are edge-case behavior (nonexistent table, views) rather than anything blocking a correct call.
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 100% and both parameters are documented there, so the description adds nothing. It never mentions db_path or table_name, leaving format expectations (relative vs absolute path, schema-qualified names) entirely to the schema, which is minimal.
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 ('Introspect') plus resource ('table') and enumerates exactly what is surfaced: schema, column types, primary keys, foreign keys. That enumeration implicitly separates it from list_tables and execute_query, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied by the verb: an agent would reasonably infer 'call this before writing a query against an unfamiliar table.' There is no explicit when-to-use, no statement of preferred alternative (e.g., list_tables to discover names first), and no prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.