Retrieve all indexes for a given MySQL table by providing connection and table names. Use it to inspect table structure and optimize query performance.
Lista todos os índices de uma tabela
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tableName | Yes | Nome da tabela | |
| databaseName | No | Nome do banco de dados | |
| connectionName | Yes | Nome da conexão |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Lista' implies a read-only operation, but there is no statement about permissions required, scope of the listing, or failure behavior for nonexistent tables/connections.
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 short sentence with no wasted words, and the object of the operation is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined 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?
The tool is a simple 3-parameter read with fully documented parameters and no output schema, so the description need not explain return values. Still, with no annotations it should say more about reading behavior and the optional databaseName's role to be fully adequate.
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%, so all three parameters (tableName, databaseName, connectionName) are already documented in the schema and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing beyond implying that tableName scopes the result.
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?
States a specific verb (list) and resource (indexes) with scope (of a table), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from the sibling analyze_indexes or get_constraints, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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?
There is no indication of when to use this versus analyze_indexes or other introspection tools, and no prerequisites (e.g., connection must exist) are stated. The agent gets no routing guidance at all.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.