sqlite_describe_tableInspect a SQLite table or view to get columns, types, primary and foreign keys, indexes, and CREATE TABLE DDL, so you can understand its structure before writing queries.
Inspect columns, types, primary keys, foreign keys, indexes, and CREATE TABLE DDL for a specific table or view in SQLite.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| table | Yes | Table or view name to inspect | |
| db_path | No | Path to SQLite database file |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value by telling the agent what information comes back (keys, indexes, DDL), which substitutes for a missing output schema, but it says nothing about behavior for a nonexistent table/view or default db_path resolution.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that enumerates the returned artifacts with no filler or redundancy.
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 read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the shape of the result (columns, types, PK/FK, indexes, DDL). The only real gap is error behavior on a missing table, which is minor given the read-only annotations.
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 both parameters are already documented. The phrase 'specific table or view' usefully confirms views are accepted (matching the schema wording), but nothing is added about db_path defaults or path validation.
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 (inspect) and resource (a table or view's schema) and enumerates exactly what it surfaces: columns, types, keys, indexes, DDL. It is clearly distinct from sqlite_list_tables and sqlite_read_query in practice, though it never names those siblings to reinforce the distinction.
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?
Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the schema-inspection step before writing or explaining a query, but the description never says when to prefer it over sqlite_list_tables or sqlite_summarize_database, nor any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.