Check a table's columns, keys, and storage engine, or list all tables. Accepts table names with or without prefix; shows if a generated ID is required before INSERT.
Columns, keys and storage engine of a table. Without name - the list of the tables. Accepts the real name (ms_store) or the bare one (store). A gen line means the table needs a generated id before an INSERT.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| reload | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v6.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains behavior like accepting real or bare names, returning a list when name is omitted, and interpreting 'gen' lines. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe side effects, though the context suggests it is a metadata read. Some behavioral detail is provided, but not exhaustive.
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?
Four short sentences, each adding useful information: output content, name optionality, name formats, and output interpretation. No fluff, though the structure is a bit fragmented and the first sentence lacks a verb.
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?
The description covers the core output and name semantics, but leaves the reload parameter undefined and does not clarify return structure or error behavior. Since there is no output schema or annotations, this gap makes the description adequate but not complete.
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?
The name parameter is well explained: it accepts real or bare names, and omitting it returns a table list. The reload parameter is completely unexplained despite 0% schema description coverage, so the description only partially compensates for the schema gap.
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 clearly states what the tool provides: columns, keys, and storage engine of a table, or the list of tables when no name is given. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like engine_db_select and engine_db_execute, which handle data operations. Lack of an explicit verb ('shows', 'returns') is a minor detraction.
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 implies usage scenarios: inspect table metadata before an INSERT (gen line) or list tables when no name is provided. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use this tool, so the agent must infer the context from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.