Retrieve up to 50 rows (default 5) from a table to inspect values and schema before writing queries.
Return the first N rows of a table (default 5, max 50).
Args:
table: Name of the table to sample
limit: Number of rows to return (default 5, max 50)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| table | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the default (5) and hard cap (max 50), but says nothing about row ordering (i.e., that 'first N' may be arbitrary without an ORDER BY), required permissions, or whether this is strictly read-only. The cap is the main behavioral fact conveyed.
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 purpose line is front-loaded and the Args block is compact. The default/max values are repeated in both the opening sentence and the args list, which is mild redundancy but acceptable given the schema has no descriptions.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a simple two-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose, both arguments, and the size constraint adequately; it only lacks sibling disambiguation.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: both parameters are explained ('table: Name of the table to sample' and 'limit: Number of rows to return (default 5, max 50)'), including the default and constraint. Minor gap in that table-name qualification conventions (schema/catalog prefixes) are not addressed.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Return the first N rows of a table'), which clearly conveys a sampling operation. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like query_database or describe_table, so an agent must infer 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus query_database, describe_table, or list_tables, all of which are plausible alternatives for inspecting a table. No exclusions, prerequisites, or situational context are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.