Show a table's schema—fields, types, and expandable relations—with an optional sample row, so you can construct accurate OData queries.
Show a table's fields and types, its links to other tables (usable in $expand), and optionally one example row, so you can write a correct query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| table | Yes | Table name from list_tables, e.g. KNS_Bill | |
| include_sample | No | Also fetch one example row |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context not in annotations: it discloses that links appear and that an example row is optional, and it does not contradict any annotation.
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 tightly worded sentence with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the purpose is attached immediately, making it easy for an agent to scan and act on.
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 simple read-only introspection tool with only two parameters, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and why to use it. Nothing necessary for correct invocation or interpretation is missing.
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 both parameters thoroughly. The description's mention of 'optionally one example row' echoes the include_sample parameter but adds little beyond the schema, though the $expand context is helpful.
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 ('Show') and identifies the exact resource: a table's fields, types, links for $expand, and optional example row. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_tables (table names only) and query (data retrieval), while stating its goal of enabling correct query construction.
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 phrase 'so you can write a correct query' establishes the intended use context: call this before writing a query when you need schema or relationship information. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.