DBJavaGenix

db_table_describe

Describe a database table's structure including columns, data types, and constraints, with optional Java type mapping for code generation.

Instructions

Get complete table structure information including columns, types, constraints

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_table_describe"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`connection_id`	Yes	Connection identifier from db_connect_test
`database`	Yes	Database name
`table`	Yes	Table name
`include_java_types`	No	Include Java type mapping for columns

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1May 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided; the description implies a read operation but does not disclose permissions, error handling, or other behavioral traits beyond the basic function.

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?

Single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Could be slightly more informative but retains efficiency.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Description lacks specifics on what exactly is included in the output (e.g., indexes, foreign keys, primary keys) given sibling tools cover those separately. No output schema provided to compensate.

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 description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool gets 'complete table structure information including columns, types, constraints', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual aspects.

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 guidance on when to use this comprehensive tool versus individual sibling tools like db_table_columns or db_table_foreign_keys. The description does not mention alternatives or conditions.

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