Retrieve column names and data types for a specified MSSQL database table to understand its structure and schema.
Describes the schema (columns and types) of a specified MSSQL Database table.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tableName | Yes | Name of the table to describe |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states what the tool does but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, how it handles errors (e.g., invalid table names), or if it has rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose without unnecessary words. It directly communicates the tool's function, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.
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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate for a simple read operation. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects and output format, which are important for a tool with no structured data support.
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%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'tableName' with its description. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the verb ('describes') and resource ('schema of a specified MSSQL Database table'), specifying it includes columns and types. It distinguishes from siblings like list_table (which likely lists table names) and read_data (which reads actual data).
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 description implies usage when schema information is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_table or create_table. It provides basic context but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.