schemaInspect database structure to list tables, columns, data types, and constraints. Use this to understand the database layout for accurate queries.
Get database schema information: tables, columns, types, and constraints.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tables | No | Optional list of specific table names to inspect | |
| database | No | Database key (format: "type:name") |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The word 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is transparent for a schema inspection tool. However, the description does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or limitations. Given that annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden and only partially fulfills it.
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, focused sentence with no filler or redundant details. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope.
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?
The description adequately explains the core function for a simple tool, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. However, it lacks any context on when to use this tool relative to other schema-related siblings, leaving some completeness gaps.
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?
The input schema covers both parameters (tables and database) with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema definitions, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states the tool retrieves database schema information (tables, columns, types, constraints). This verb-resource pairing is specific and distinct from sibling tools like query or explain, which focus on data operations rather than structure.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as snapshot_schema or schema_diff. No conditions, exclusions, or comparison with siblings are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.