Retrieve column metadata for a specified table in a Microsoft SQL database. Provide database and table names to list columns without exposing row data.
List a table's columns (metadata only, no row data).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| db_name | Yes | ||
| table_name | 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 behavioral disclosure burden. 'Metadata only, no row data' adds a useful constraint beyond the tool name, and 'list' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention permissions or lack of side effects explicitly.
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 compact sentence with no filler; the key scoping detail is included in the parenthetical. Every word earns its place.
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 metadata query with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it states the operation and the return scope. It does not detail the exact shape of the returned column metadata, but that is not essential for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.
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%, and the description does not explain db_name or table_name beyond what their names already suggest. It fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation, such as whether table names can be schema-qualified or what format the database name should take.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('a table's columns'), and the parenthetical 'metadata only, no row data' distinguishes it from data-retrieval tools like ecp_mssql_browse_rows. The MSSQL prefix also separates it from the MySQL and Postgres list_columns siblings.
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 phrase 'metadata only, no row data' implies the tool is for schema inspection rather than row retrieval, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The usage context is inferable rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.