mcp-server-db2i

Get Journal Info

get_journal_info

Read-onlyIdempotent

List physical files in an IBM i library with journaling, journal images, omitted entries, and primary key status. Flags tables not journaled or lacking both images for replication.

Instructions

List the physical data files in a library with their journal, journal library, journal images, omitted entries, and whether they have a primary key, using QSYS2.OBJECT_STATISTICS. needs_attention is true when a table is not journaled, or has no primary key and does not journal both images, which journal-based replication tools need. Requires IBM i 7.3 Technology Refresh 2 or later.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum rows to return. Capped by QUERY_MAX_LIMIT.
`filter`	No	Filter pattern for table names. Use * as wildcard. Example: "ORDER*" matches tables starting with ORDER
`schema`	No	Schema (library) to inspect. Uses the system's default schema if not provided.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`count`	No
`error`	No
`schema`	No
`success`	Yes
`truncated`	No
`needsAttention`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.0.0Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare it as a safe, idempotent read (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint: false, openWorldHint: false). The description adds valuable context beyond that: it explains the computed 'needs_attention' flag, what conditions set it, and why it matters (journal-based replication). It also notes the OS version requirement, which is a meaningful operational constraint.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the first describes the output, the second explains the needs_attention flag, and the third states the version requirement. No redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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 explained. Annotations cover the safety profile. The description provides the necessary domain context (what needs_attention means, replication use case, IBM i version) and the underlying API, making it complete for correct invocation.

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%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters (limit, filter, schema). The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List the physical data files... with their journal...'. It names the underlying IBM i API (QSYS2.OBJECT_STATISTICS) and the exact fields returned. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_tables or describe_table, but the domain specificity is high.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description explains the semantics of needs_attention and its relevance to 'journal-based replication tools', which implies a use case. However, it doesn't state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_tables or describe_table, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond the OS version.

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