Retrieve exact CREATE statements for all tables, indexes, views, and triggers to inspect a SQLite database schema, with optional system tables.
The CREATE statements of every table, index, view and trigger, exactly as stored. View descriptions appear as '-- description:' comments. The server's own tables are hidden unless include_system is true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_system | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuine context: view descriptions surface as '-- description:' comments, and the server's internal tables are withheld unless include_system is true, which is behavior an agent could not infer from the schema.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary return contents before the two behavioral caveats. Formatting/indentation in the source is slightly ragged but the content earns its place with no filler.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must characterize the return, and it does by specifying the sentence types returned and the comment representation for view descriptions. It could say more about the volume of objects returned, but for a single-param read tool it is essentially complete.
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 carries the burden for the single parameter, and it does: include_system is explained as revealing the server's own tables that are otherwise hidden. Its boolean type and default are clear from the schema, so nothing critical is missing.
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+resource and its exact scope: the CREATE statements of every table, index, view and trigger, exactly as stored. This is clearly distinct from siblings like list_tables or describe_table, which return names or per-object metadata rather than full DDL.
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 implied by the purpose (fetch raw DDL), and the description notes when the server's own tables appear, but it never states when to prefer this over describe_table or list_tables, nor any prerequisites for calling it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.