DBJavaGenix

db_query_table_exists

Checks whether a database table exists, using a connection identifier, database name, and table name as inputs.

Instructions

Check if a table exists in the database

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": {
      "connection_id": "<connection_id>",
      "database": "<database>",
      "table": "<table>"
    },
    "name": "db_query_table_exists"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`connection_id`	Yes	Connection identifier from db_connect_test
`database`	Yes	Database name
`table`	Yes	Table name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1May 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states existence check but doesn't disclose return type (likely boolean) or error behavior (e.g., invalid connection). Minimal but non-contradictory.

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?

Single sentence of 7 words, highly concise and front-loaded with purpose. No wasted information. Ideal for a simple lookup tool.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a tool with 3 simple parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is nearly complete. Missing detail on return value (e.g., boolean or error) but sufficient for basic use.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies. Parameter semantics are adequately handled by schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states 'Check if a table exists in the database', which is specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like db_query_execute (which runs queries) and db_query_tables (which lists tables).

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is implied: check existence before other operations, but no alternatives or exclusions mentioned. Average for a simple boolean check tool.

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