Fetch sample rows from any JVLink table to preview its data format and structure, enabling quick understanding before running queries.
テーブルのサンプルデータを取得（データ形式理解用）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| num_rows | No | ||
| table_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions the purpose without disclosing behavioral traits such as speed, limits on num_rows, or that it is read-only. The description adds minimal behavioral context.
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?
The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with purpose. However, it lacks detail that could be added without harming conciseness.
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 basic purpose but does not mention that it returns sample rows, the default number of rows (5), or any constraints. For a simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the tool description does not explain the parameters 'table_name' or 'num_rows' beyond their names. The description adds no additional meaning to the schema.
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 'Get sample data of table' with a specific purpose 'for understanding data format'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_table_info' or 'get_database_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?
The description implies usage for understanding data format but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.