Retrieve column names, data types, and available WRDS column descriptions for a specified library and table to understand dataset structure before querying.
Show columns, types and WRDS column descriptions (where available) for a table.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| table | Yes | ||
| library | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Show' implies a read-only metadata lookup with no side effects, and it discloses that column descriptions are returned only 'where available', but it says nothing about permissions, cost, or behavior for missing/invalid tables.
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, tightly written sentence with the key output contents front-loaded and no filler. Nothing needs trimming and nothing is buried.
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?
The output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and the one-liner adequately conveys the tool's intent. However, with 0% parameter coverage and no annotations, the unresolved 'library' semantics leave a real gap for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.
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 neither parameter is documented. The description only implies 'table'; the required 'library' parameter is never explained, nor is the expected naming format (e.g., whether it takes a library code like 'comp').
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 gives a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('columns, types and column descriptions for a table'), which is a clear describe/schema-inspection operation. It is naturally differentiated from siblings like list_tables and query, though it never names them explicitly.
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 guidance on when to use this versus list_tables, search_catalog, or query, nor any mention of prerequisites. Usage is only weakly implied — an agent must infer it is for inspecting a known table's schema before querying.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.