Get the schema of a specific Dremio table by providing its full path. Inspect column names and data types to plan queries.
Get the schema of a specific table in Dremio
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| table_path | Yes | Full path to the table as an array (e.g., ["source_name", "schema", "table_name"]) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is a useful cue, but the description does not disclose return format, error behavior, or Dremio-specific requirements. It is adequate but incomplete.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the action, object, and scope.
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 one-parameter metadata getter with no output schema, the input side is fully covered. However, the description leaves the return value format unstated and provides no usage context or alternative routing, making it minimally adequate rather than complete.
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%, and the schema fully documents table_path with a concrete example. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond calling the table 'specific,' so the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Get') and a specific resource ('schema of a specific table in Dremio'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like catalog_browse, table_preview, and sql_query, even though no sibling is explicitly named.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions such as 'use this when you need table metadata' or 'for data rows use table_preview instead.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.