MCP OpsBridge

db_describe_table

Retrieve column names and data types for a table in a PostgreSQL schema, simplifying schema inspection for developers.

Instructions

Show columns and types for a table

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "table": "<table>"
    },
    "name": "db_describe_table"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`table`	Yes	Table name to describe
`schema`	No	Database schema name	public

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Show' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but it does not explicitly state this or mention error behavior or permission requirements. It is not misleading, but adds no extra behavioral context beyond the basic action.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word adds value: 'Show' plus 'columns and types for a table' fully encapsulates the tool's purpose. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the low complexity and full parameter schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, there is no output schema, so the description should ideally be more explicit about the return format or the fact that it returns column metadata. It does not mention the default schema behavior, which is left to the schema. For such a simple tool, it is acceptable but leaves some gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents them well. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema, such as value formats or relationships. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('columns and types for a table'), clearly indicating that this tool describes table structure. It is distinct from sibling tools like db_list_tables or db_execute_query, though it does not explicitly name them. It lacks detail on schema scope but is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The description does not explain when to choose this over db_execute_query or db_list_tables, leaving the agent to infer from context. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.