Locate tables and columns by case-insensitive name pattern when exact names are unknown. Search the database schema to find matching objects.
Search for tables and columns by name pattern (case-insensitive). Useful when you don't know the exact table or column name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| search | Yes | Search pattern (matches table names and column names) | |
| data_source_id | Yes | Data source ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds the case-insensitive matching behavior. It does not disclose details such as result limits, whether matching is substring-based or pattern-based, or whether it returns only names or full schema details, so the added behavioral context is modest.
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?
Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the usage note follows immediately, making the description scannable and efficient.
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 simple read-only search tool with fully described parameters and a clear use case, the description is nearly complete. The only real omission is the absence of any indication of the return shape, but that is partly mitigated by the tool's simple, search-oriented purpose.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description's phrase 'by name pattern' reinforces the search parameter's meaning but does not add substantive new information beyond what the schema already states.
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?
The description states a specific action ('Search for tables and columns by name pattern') and a clear resource, with the case-insensitive behavior making the matching semantics explicit. It also differentiates the tool from exact-schema siblings like get_data_source_schema and get_table_info by focusing on fuzzy name pattern lookup.
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?
'Useful when you don't know the exact table or column name' gives a clear, practical trigger condition for selecting this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools like get_data_source_schema or get_table_info for cases where the exact structure is already known.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.