Retrieve database table definitions and design notes from the Bible study library to inspect its structure and understand data organization.
The index schema (CREATE statements) and the design notes from docs/SCHEMA.md.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds that the payload is DDL text plus a specific documentation file, which is useful context, but says nothing about output format, size, or whether the notes are optional/absent in some deployments.
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 tight sentence with zero waste, front-loading the main artifact (CREATE statements) and then the secondary content (design notes). It is a sentence fragment rather than a full statement, which is a minor stylistic ding but costs no clarity.
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 zero-parameter, read-only document-fetch tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what will come back (DDL plus design notes) and where those notes originate. Only the return format (raw text/markdown) and rough size are unstated, which is a small gap.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% and empty, consistent with the description's parameterless nature.
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 names the resource and its content precisely: the index CREATE statements plus design notes from docs/SCHEMA.md. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling 'sql' tool (which runs queries) even though it doesn't say so explicitly. The verb is only implied ('returns'), which keeps it short of a 5.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the reference to consult before writing SQL, but the description never says 'call this before using sql' or names any alternative or exclusion. No prerequisites or caveats are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.