Retrieve a PostgreSQL table's structure, including columns, types, nullability, and defaults, for a given environment and table name.
Get the structure of a table (columns, types, nullability, defaults)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| env | Yes | Environment (staging, test, prod) | |
| table | Yes | Table name | |
| schema | No | Schema name (defaults to the environment's configured schema) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return contents, but never states that this is a non-mutating read, what happens for an unknown table or schema, or any permission/environment constraints — leaving key behavior to inference.
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 front-loaded sentence that names the operation and its output with zero filler; every word earns its place.
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 simple read-only metadata tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and returns. It could be stronger by noting the read-only nature and environment scoping, but it is largely sufficient for correct invocation.
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 100%, with env, table, and schema all documented (including the schema default behavior), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('structure of a table') and enumerates the returned content (columns, types, nullability, defaults), so the agent knows exactly what the tool yields. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list-tables or list-schemas, relying on the name for that distinction.
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 use this tool versus list-tables, list-schemas, or query. The usage context is only implied by the name, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.