Retrieve foreign-key references in a PowerDesigner PDM, showing parent/child tables, join columns, cardinality, and mandatory status.
List foreign-key references (PDM) of a model: parent/child tables, join column pairs, cardinality and mandatory flag.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model_id | 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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the output content (parent/child tables, join pairs, cardinality, mandatory flag), which is the key behavioral information for a listing operation. It does not mention any side effects or error conditions, but as a read-only list, the output disclosure is sufficient and adds value beyond the bare schema.
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, tightly worded sentence that leads with the verb and resource, followed by the specific output fields. There is no redundancy or filler, and every clause contributes meaning.
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?
Since there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns. It covers the essential fields an agent needs to know. It omits potential details like pagination, error behavior, or model-open prerequisites, but for a straightforward list operation on a known model, these are not critical and the description is largely complete.
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 for the single parameter model_id. The phrase 'of a model' indicates that model_id identifies the target model, but it does not add format or constraint details. Given the parameter is obvious and the description gives minimal context, a 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?
The description starts with a specific verb (List) and resource (foreign-key references of a model), and enumerates the returned fields (parent/child tables, join column pairs, cardinality, mandatory flag). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_reference (singular) and list_relationships (logical relationships), and from other list tools like list_tables or list_keys.
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 implies usage when a model's foreign-key references are needed, and clarifies the scope to PDM references. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, such as 'use list_relationships for logical relationships' or 'only valid for physical data models'. This leaves the agent to infer context from the sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.