FC 26 MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

le_get_db_fields

Get a list of field names for any database table in FC 26. Useful for editing squad files and understanding table schema.

Instructions

List fields of a database table.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "table": "<table>"
    },
    "name": "le_get_db_fields"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`table`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.29Jul 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, requires special permissions, or has any side effects. The agent is left to infer safety.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Extremely concise—a single sentence. While efficient, it could be slightly expanded to include parameter details or return type without becoming verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is too sparse. It does not specify what 'fields' means (e.g., column names, types) or the return format, leaving the agent uncertain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description is responsible for explaining the 'table' parameter. It offers no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (a string required parameter).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('List fields') and the resource ('database table'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like le_get_db_rows and le_get_db_tables by specifying it returns fields rather than rows or table names.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or provide context for when listing fields is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.