Profile a table in one query: row count plus per-column distinct count, NULL count, MIN and MAX; omit columns to profile all and scan the full table.
Profile a table in one query: row count and, per column, distinct count, NULL count, MIN and MAX. Without columns every column is profiled, which scans the whole table on its backend.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| table | Yes | Full table name from list_tables | |
| columns | No | Only these columns |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add a genuine behavioral trait: omitting 'columns' profiles every column and scans the whole table on the backend, which is an important cost signal. It omits auth requirements and any rate/pagination limits, but the scan warning is substantive.
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?
Two sentences, the core output list front-loaded, followed immediately by the cost caveat. No filler and nothing to cut.
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?
With no output schema, the description adequately enumerates the return values and explains both parameters' behavior, including the omitted-columns default. Minor gaps remain around the scan's practical implications, but an agent has what it needs to call it.
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% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the default behavior when 'columns' is omitted ('every column is profiled'), which the schema's 'Only these columns' does not state.
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 ('Profile') and resource ('a table'), and enumerates exactly what is computed: row count plus per-column distinct, NULL, MIN and MAX. This clearly separates it from describe_table, though it does not name that sibling to make the contrast explicit.
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 caveat about omitting columns implies the intended usage and cost, but there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this tool versus describe_table or execute_sql. Usage is inferred rather than guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.