Retrieve the complete database schema for PostgreSQL or MySQL, listing all tables, views, columns, data types, and constraints. Filter by schema name to inspect specific structures.
Get the full database schema including all tables, views, and their columns with data types and constraints.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| schemaName | No | Filter by specific schema name (e.g., public for PostgreSQL) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses the output scope (tables, views, columns, data types, constraints) and the verb 'Get' implies a non-mutating read, but it does not describe default behavior when no schemaName is supplied, response format, or potential size/performance considerations.
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 states the action and the exact contents of the returned schema. Every phrase adds useful specificity with no filler or redundancy.
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 introspection tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the return value covers. The optional schemaName semantics are handled by the schema, and basic invocation is complete, though it leaves some edge-case behavior undocumented.
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 only parameter, schemaName, is fully documented in the input schema with an example, providing 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is 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') over a clear resource ('the full database schema') and enumerates what is included: all tables, views, columns, data types, and constraints. This makes it easily distinguishable from granular siblings like db_get_tables or db_get_columns.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as db_get_tables or db_get_columns. There is no mention of when schemaName should be provided or omitted, and no exclusions or routing advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.