Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-mssql-server

mcp-mssql-server

by hyunjongmoon
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript

get_table_metadata

Retrieves column metadata (name, type, length, nullability, primary key) for a specified table or view without returning any row data.

Instructions

테이블/뷰의 컬럼 메타데이터(이름·타입·길이·NULL허용·PK여부)를 반환. 실제 행 데이터는 반환하지 않음.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "db": "<db>",
      "table": "<table>"
    },
    "name": "get_table_metadata"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dbYesDB 키 (예: primary)
tableYes스키마.테이블명 (예: dbo.Users)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It correctly states the tool is read-only (no row data returned). However, it omits details like authentication, error behavior, or response structure beyond listing metadata fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by a clarifying exclusion. Every word serves a purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Adequate for a simple metadata retrieval tool. Includes key info (what is returned and what is not). Could be improved by specifying the exact structure of metadata fields or error handling, but sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the tool returns column metadata for tables/views and explicitly excludes row data. Distinguishes from sibling get_sp_definition by specifying the resource type (table/view vs stored procedure).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., get_sp_definition). Does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools