describe_tableInspect a table's schema by providing database and table names, returning column definitions, indexes, and the CREATE TABLE statement.
获取表的详细结构信息，包括列定义、索引、建表语句
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| table | Yes | 表名称 | |
| database | Yes | 数据库名称 |
| 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. The verb '获取' strongly implies a read-only retrieval, and the description states what is returned (columns, indexes, DDL). However, it does not explicitly disclose that no data is modified, nor does it mention prerequisites like table existence or required permissions. It is adequate but not rich in behavioral detail.
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 one information-dense sentence: the primary action is stated first, followed by a specific list of returned components. There is absolutely no filler or repetition, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 input schema fully documents both required parametersessed an output schema exists to describe return structure. The description communicates the tool's core purpose and return contents. The main gaps are lack of explicit usage guidance and any confirmation of read-only behavior, but for a simple metadata retrieval operation these are minor.
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 100%; both parameters (database, table) already have clear Chinese descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning or constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb (获取/get) and resource (表的详细结构信息/detailed table structure), then enumerates the exact content returned: column definitions, indexes, and DDL. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like query (row data), get_table_sample (sample rows), and get_table_stats (statistics).
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 when schema details are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. It names no sibling tools and gives no 'when not to use' guidance, so the usage context is only implied through the description's wording.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.