mcp-server-sqlite

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

table_info

Retrieve comprehensive table metadata including column definitions, data types, constraints, and total row count from SQLite databases.

Instructions

Get detailed info about a single table: columns, types, constraints, and row count.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "db": "<db>",
      "table": "<table>"
    },
    "name": "table_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`db`	Yes	Path to the .db or .sqlite file
`table`	Yes	Table name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Mar 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's behavior (retrieving metadata) and output content (columns, types, constraints, row count), but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or performance characteristics. It doesn't contradict any annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists specific metadata retrieved. Every word earns its place with zero waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only metadata tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers what information is returned. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., structured JSON), error cases, or limitations, which would be helpful given the absence of structured fields.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (db path and table name). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, maintaining the baseline score.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed info about a single table'), specifying what information is retrieved (columns, types, constraints, row count). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_databases' (lists databases) and 'schema' (likely shows overall schema), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'explain' or 'query'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when detailed table metadata is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'schema' (which might show broader schema info) or 'query' (which retrieves data). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server