Inspect PostgreSQL database structure by listing schemas, tables, columns, indexes, or foreign keys. Specify a schema or table to focus the query and set a row limit for concise results.
Inspect schemas, tables, columns, indexes or foreign keys. Repeat for each kind.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| table | No | ||
| schema | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral note about repeating calls for each kind, but it does not disclose what 'inspect' returns or how results are shaped. No contradiction with annotations.
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 very short and front-loaded, with no filler words. The 'Repeat for each kind' instruction is a bit cryptic, but overall the text is efficient and easy to scan.
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?
With no output schema and minimal parameter documentation, the description does not fully equip an agent to call the tool correctly across all kinds. It fails to explain parameter relationships, return behavior, or how the optional filter parameters apply to each kind.
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, but it only restates the kind enum and says nothing about limit, table, or schema parameters. For example, it does not explain that inspecting columns likely requires table/schema context. This leaves most parameter semantics to inference.
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 ('Inspect') and explicitly enumerates the resources it operates on: schemas, tables, columns, indexes, and foreign keys. This makes the tool's scope reasonably clear, though it does not differentiate it from siblings like query or explain beyond the metadata focus.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus query, explain, semantic, or cypher. The phrase 'Repeat for each kind' hints at a multi-call pattern, but it does not clarify the conditions under which this tool should be selected or excluded.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.