Extract rows from an ESE database table, with optional column selection and text filtering, to inspect forensic database contents.
Dump rows of an ESE database table (optionally selected columns, filtered by text).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | ||
| part | No | ||
| image | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| table | No | ||
| columns | No | ||
| contains | No | ||
| local_path | No |
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. 'Dump rows' implies a read operation, but the description does not state permissions, error behavior, return format, whether the operation is read-only, or how the limit is applied.
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. The parenthetical cleanly groups optional column selection and text filtering, though it remains quite terse for an 8-parameter tool.
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 tool has 8 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema. The one-sentence description covers the core operation but does not explain the source-selection parameters or the default row limit, leaving the definition materially incomplete for correct invocation.
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% across 8 parameters. The description gives meaning to table, columns, and contains, but leaves ref, part, image, limit, and local_path unexplained, which is a substantial gap for a tool with no schema-level parameter documentation.
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 and resource: dump rows of an ESE database table. It also mentions optional column selection and text filtering. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling esedb_tables tool, but the row-level scope is clear.
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 by saying it dumps rows with optional columns and a text filter, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It never mentions esedb_tables or explains when to choose this tool over listing tables.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.