Retrieve the full structure of a MySQL table—columns, indexes, and constraints—to inspect schemas and support database administration.
Obtém a estrutura completa de uma tabela
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tableName | Yes | Nome da tabela | |
| schemaName | Yes | Nome do schema | |
| connectionName | No | Nome da conexão para usar | |
| includeIndexes | No | Incluir informações de índices | |
| includeConstraints | No | Incluir informações de constraints |
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 disclosure burden. It implies a read-only lookup ('Obtém'), but does not state permissions required, what 'complete structure' includes, whether defaults are applied, or any output characteristics, leaving key behavioral traits undisclosed.
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 single sentence is concise and front-loaded with no wasted words. However, its extreme brevity leaves the definition under-informative, though that is not a violation of conciseness itself.
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?
For a tool with five parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many closely related siblings, a single sentence is insufficient. The description does not explain what 'complete structure' entails, what the return contains, or how it differs from similar tools.
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 input schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.
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 ('Obtém') and resource ('estrutura completa de uma tabela'), making the core action clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like get_table_info, get_constraints, or get_indexes, so an agent cannot tell when to prefer it without inferring from the name.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.