Retrieves schema metadata for a specified database table, including columns, data types, constraints, and indexes. Use this tool to inspect table structure and support query authoring or schema analysis.
Get table structure including columns, constraints, and size statistics
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| table | Yes | ||
| schema | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Get' implies a read-only metadata operation and it lists the kind of content returned (columns, constraints, size statistics), but it says nothing about permissions, cost/latency of statistics collection, or behavior for a non-existent table.
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?
A single efficient sentence with the resource and return contents front-loaded and no filler. It is compact, though the brevity comes partly at the cost of the missing parameter and usage detail.
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?
For a two-parameter read-only introspection tool with no output schema, the description gives an adequate picture of what comes back. It leaves uncovered the interplay of the two required parameters and error behavior, which matters given zero schema coverage.
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% for both required parameters, and the description adds no detail about them. It never explains what 'schema' and 'table' mean here, whether the table name must be schema-qualified, or how defaults are handled.
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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('table structure') and enumerates what the structure contains (columns, constraints, size statistics). This clearly separates it from siblings like list_indexes and list_objects, though it does not explicitly name an alternative to route against.
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 indication of when to use this versus list_objects, search_objects, or list_indexes, and no prerequisites stated. The agent must infer usage context entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.