readonly-db-mcp

get_indexes

Retrieve indexes for a specified table, including name, columns in order, uniqueness, type, and cardinality, using read-only database exploration.

Instructions

Indexes of a table: name, columns (in order), uniqueness, type, cardinality.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "table": "<table>"
    },
    "name": "get_indexes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`table`	Yes
`schema`	No
`connection`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the output fields (name, columns, etc.) but omits any mention of side effects, permissions, or limitations. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It gets straight to the point, though it could benefit from more structure or explanation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It doesn't specify how the parameters affect the results or what the output looks like beyond the listed fields. The tool's behavior in different scenarios (e.g., schema specified or not) is unclear.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description does not explain any of the 3 parameters ('table', 'schema', 'connection'). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use them.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly indicates the tool returns index details for a table, listing attributes like name, columns, uniqueness, type, and cardinality. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'describe_table' which may also provide index info.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_foreign_keys', 'describe_table'). No context about prerequisites or context is given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server