Fetch sample rows from a MySQL table to preview its data. Specify the table name and optional row limit (1–100, default 10) for quick inspection.
Return sample rows from a table.
Args: table_name: Table name. limit: Max rows (1-100). Default 10.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| table_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It is implicitly a safe read operation and it does disclose the limit range (1-100) and default (10), but it never says how rows are selected — random sample versus first N — which is the single most consequential behavioral detail for a tool called 'sample_rows'.
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 args section is terse. The docstring formatting is slightly more verbose than needed but nothing is wasted.
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 no explanation and the low complexity of a 2-parameter tool keeps the bar low. However, with zero annotations and zero schema descriptions, the sampling semantics and any usage guidance are missing.
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. It adds real value for 'limit' by naming the 1-100 range (the schema only shows the default), but 'table_name: Table name.' is pure tautology and adds nothing over the schema's title.
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 and resource ('Return sample rows from a table'), so the agent knows exactly what the operation does. It does not differentiate itself from the closest siblings (count_rows, execute_query), which might also be used to inspect a table.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Nothing tells the agent why it should sample rows rather than run count_rows or an arbitrary execute_query, so the routing decision is left entirely to inference from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.