Retrieves a SQLite table’s columns, data types, primary and foreign keys, and row count so you can inspect its schema and relationships.
Columns, types, primary keys, foreign keys and row count of a table.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| table | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of the result (including row count, which implies the tool actually reads table statistics), but says nothing about read-only safety, behavior on a missing table, or permission requirements. Enumerating returned fields is the main value added, and it partly duplicates the output schema.
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 tight sentence fragment with no filler, and the most useful information (what you get back) is front-loaded. It reads as a noun phrase rather than a statement of action, which is a minor structural weakness.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description is adequate for a simple one-parameter introspection tool. What is missing is how to specify the table identifier and how this differs from get_schema_ddl, both of which an agent needs to pick and call correctly.
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 single 'table' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description adds nothing about its expected form — bare name vs. schema-qualified, case sensitivity, or quoting rules. With one undocumented parameter, the description should have compensated and does not.
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 enumerates exactly what the tool returns (columns, types, PKs, FKs, row count) for a table, which is a precise statement of purpose beyond the name alone. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the overlapping sibling get_schema_ddl or position itself against list_tables.
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 call this versus get_schema_ddl (which likely returns similar DDL information) or list_tables. The agent must infer the choice from the name alone, with no stated preconditions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.