Retrieve database schema for a specific table or all tables in a SQL Server connection. Get column definitions and structure to understand data models.
Get database schema information for specific tables
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| table | No | Table name (optional, returns all if not specified) | |
| connection | Yes | Connection name to use |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves schema information but doesn't disclose whether it's read-only, whether it requires special permissions, what happens if the table doesn't exist, or whether it returns a large result set. For a read-like tool, the lack of behavioral context is a gap.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and resource. It earns its place without redundancy, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks context about what 'schema information' includes (e.g., columns, types, constraints) and doesn't mention behavior for invalid inputs or connection failures, which an agent might need to know.
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 adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, only implying that 'table' is optional and scopes the result. This meets the baseline of 3 but doesn't add extra context like format or examples.
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 verb ('Get') and resource ('database schema information') and mentions it is for specific tables, which distinguishes it from siblings like query or get_indexes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_indexes or get_stored_procedure, which are also schema-related, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.
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?
The description implies usage for retrieving schema information, and the optional 'table' parameter suggests when to use it (for specific tables vs all). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_indexes or get_execution_plan, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites like needing a valid connection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.