Retrieve the schema of a specific PostgreSQL table to inspect columns, data types, and constraints before writing queries.
Get the schema of a specific table
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| table_name | Yes | Name of the table to describe |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about return format, error behavior (e.g., nonexistent table), or permissions. 'Get' implies a read, but no explicit confirmation is given.
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 efficient sentence with no wasted words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity contributes to the gaps elsewhere.
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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. With no output schema and no annotations, it leaves the caller without any note on return shape or failure modes.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or qualification details beyond what the schema already provides.
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 (get) and resource (schema of a table), making the operation clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_tables or query_database, but the resource scope makes the distinction reasonably inferable.
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 such as list_tables or query_database, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.