Validates CREATE TABLE statements include all mandatory BSG audit fields with correct types and a properly named PRIMARY KEY.
Validates that a CREATE TABLE statement includes all mandatory BSG audit fields (Estado, UsuarioCreacion, UsuarioModificacion, FechaCreacion, FechaModificacion, RowVersion) with correct types and a properly named PRIMARY KEY.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sql | Yes | The CREATE TABLE SQL statement to check |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the validation criteria but not what a failure looks like, whether it throws or returns findings, or whether it is a pure read operation — none of which the annotations supply.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the scope, with the enumerated field list earning its place as the actual validation contract. No redundant or filler text.
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 validator with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the input contract well but leaves the result contract (pass/fail shape, list of violations) entirely unstated, which is a real gap for an agent interpreting the call.
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% for the single 'sql' parameter, so the schema already documents it as the CREATE TABLE statement to check. The description adds no format, dialect, or size details beyond that, fitting the baseline of 3.
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 names a specific verb (Validates) and a narrow resource (CREATE TABLE statements containing BSG audit fields), then enumerates the exact fields checked. This scopes it tightly enough to be distinguished from the broader sibling validate_sql_object without opening either schema.
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?
It states what is validated but never when to call it versus validate_sql_object or validate_object_name, nor any prerequisite (e.g., run after generating a template). Usage is only inferable from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.