Retrieve detailed information about a specific MySQL table, including columns, data types, and constraints, to support database administration and monitoring.
Obtém informações detalhadas sobre 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. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether it requires elevated permissions, what scope of metadata it returns, or whether it is expensive. 'Detalhadas' adds no behavioral detail beyond implying a read.
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 filler, and the action is front-loaded. Its concision is fine, though the brevity is partly achieved by omitting information the description should carry.
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?
There is no output schema, no annotations, and no statement of what 'detailed information' comprises, so the agent cannot predict the return shape or disambiguate from siblings. For a metadata-inspection tool in a schema that already contains get_table_structure, get_constraints, get_indexes, and get_foreign_keys, the description should explain the distinction and scope; it does not.
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 the schema already documents connectionName, tableName, and databaseName. The description adds no additional parameter meaning (e.g., that databaseName is optional or how omitted values are resolved), so the baseline 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?
States a verb ('Obtém') and a resource (tabela), but 'informações detalhadas' is vague about what is actually returned. It fails to distinguish itself from close siblings like get_table_structure, get_constraints, get_indexes, or get_foreign_keys, which plausibly return overlapping 'detailed information' about a table.
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 provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the text whether to call this versus get_table_structure for the same table.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.