get_table_schemaInspect OpenCart table columns and schema; the store prefix (e.g., 'oc_') is added automatically if missing.
Show columns for an OpenCart table. The install's prefix (e.g. 'oc_') is added automatically if missing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| table | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does add one genuinely useful trait: the install prefix is applied automatically if omitted. It does not state that the operation is read-only, what happens for an unknown table, or any error/auth behavior.
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 short sentences, the core purpose front-loaded and the prefix caveat immediately after. Nothing is padded and every sentence carries information.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a one-parameter inspection tool the description covers purpose and the main input quirk, leaving only minor gaps such as read-only status and failure behavior.
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% and the single 'table' parameter has no schema-level detail, so the description must compensate. It does so meaningfully by explaining that the 'oc_'-style prefix is added automatically when missing, which is non-obvious behavior an agent needs.
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 concrete verb and resource ('Show columns for an OpenCart table'), which is enough to distinguish it from list_tables or query at a glance. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting the siblings that could also inspect schema.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as list_tables or run_sql, and no stated prerequisites. Usage is only inferable from the verb, so an agent gets no routing help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.