Retrieves a list of all columns in the BeezUP catalog. Useful for viewing column names and preparing data mapping.
Get catalog column list
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "Catalog_GetCatalogColumns"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only states the action but provides no behavioral context. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that this is a read-only operation (though 'get' implies it), nor does it explain what data is returned or any side effects. The minimal information is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.
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 extremely concise—a single phrase with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., a full sentence) but given the tool's simplicity, it earns a high score for conciseness.
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?
Given the tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema) and the context signals indicate full coverage, the description is marginally adequate. However, it fails to provide any context about the return value or how this relates to sibling tools. A more complete description would note that it returns column definitions for the current catalog.
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 input schema is empty with no parameters, so coverage is trivially 100%. According to the rubric, the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable here since there are none.
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 'Get catalog column list' clearly states the verb and resource, but it is a near-tautology of the tool name. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like Catalog_GetBeezUPColumns or Catalog_GetCustomColumns, which also involve getting columns. The description is adequate but not specific enough to differentiate.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many similar sibling tools (e.g., Catalog_GetCustomColumns), the description should specify that this retrieves the standard catalog columns, not custom ones. The lack of context makes it hard for an agent to choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.