Retrieves detailed schema information for a specified table or collection, including columns, data types, constraints, and indexes to support database exploration.
Get detailed schema info for a specific table/collection, including columns, types, constraints, and indexes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| table | Yes | Table or collection name | |
| connection | No | Connection alias (default: 'default') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does 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 not state whether the call is read-only, whether it requires a live connection, whether it fails on unknown tables, or how errors are reported. Only the return content is implied, and even that is not framed behaviorally.
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?
It is a single efficient sentence with the resource and return content front-loaded. It earns its length but does not add structural information beyond one clause.
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 two-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is returned but omits connection handling, error behavior, and its relationship to 'get_schema'. It is minimum viable but incomplete for the sibling context.
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 both parameters are documented in the schema (including the connection default). The description adds no syntax, format, or scoping detail beyond saying the table is 'specific', so the baseline 3 is correct.
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+resource ('Get detailed schema info for a specific table/collection') and enumerates what is returned (columns, types, constraints, indexes). It does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'get_schema', so sibling differentiation is missing.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives mentioned, and no exclusions. The sibling 'get_schema' is a plausible alternative but is never referenced, leaving the agent to infer which one applies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.