Retrieve sample rows from a database table to quickly understand its data structure and content, enabling better query planning and schema exploration.
Get sample rows from a table to understand its data structure and content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of sample rows to return (default: 10, max: 100) | |
| table | Yes | The name of the table to get sample data from | |
| schemaName | No | The 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 provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and 'sample rows' implies a limited subset, but the description does not disclose ordering, potential errors, permissions, or that no data mutation occurs.
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 sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
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 sample tool, the description adequately conveys what the tool does and returns. The main gap is the lack of explicit guidance on when to use it instead of closely related sibling tools, but the schema covers parameter details and the purpose is clear.
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 each parameter already documented including defaults and constraints. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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?
The description clearly states the action ('Get sample rows'), the resource ('a table'), and the intent ('understand its data structure and content'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like db_execute_query, db_get_schema, and db_get_columns without ambiguity.
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 the tool is for exploring table data, which suggests when it should be used, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives such as db_execute_query or db_get_columns. No exclusions or explicit routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.