Create an index on a table column to accelerate query performance, with an optional unique constraint for data integrity.
Cria um índice em uma tabela
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Nome do índice | |
| table | Yes | Nome da tabela | |
| column | Yes | Nome da coluna para indexar | |
| unique | No | Se o índice deve ser único (padrão: false) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'creates an index in a table' and gives no information about side effects, potential locking, failure conditions, irreversibility, or permission requirements. This is a mutating DDL operation with zero behavioral context.
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 short sentence with no wasted words, but it is also under-specified and lacks the substance needed to support agent decision-making. It is concise in length, but the brevity borders on under-specification rather than efficient communication.
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 a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no behavioral transparency, the description is incomplete. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., table/column must exist), index uniqueness behavior, or potential impact on database performance, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
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%, with all four parameters already documented by name and purpose. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Cria' (creates) and the resource 'índice em uma tabela' (index in a table), which is a specific, unambiguous operation. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like execute_ddl, but the resource and operation are sufficiently explicit.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use create_index versus alternative tools such as execute_ddl or add_constraint. No prerequisites, exclusions, or selection criteria are provided; the description simply states the action without situating it among the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.