Retrieve all index information for a specified table in Vertica databases to analyze database structure and optimize query performance.
List all indexes for a specific table.
Args:
ctx: FastMCP context for progress reporting and logging
table_name: Name of the table to inspect
schema: Schema name (default: public)
Returns:
Index information as a string
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| schema | No | public | |
| table_name | Yes |
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 must disclose behavioral traits. It states returns are a string but omits details on performance, side effects, permissions, or error handling, leaving the agent under-informed.
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?
The description is short and includes an Args/Returns structure, making it reasonably scannable. It could be slightly more concise by merging the header, but overall it is efficient.
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?
Given the tool has 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It lacks details on the return format, edge cases, or database prerequisites, making it only barely adequate for operation.
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 0%, but the description adds meaningful parameter descriptions ('Name of the table to inspect' and 'Schema name (default: public)'), compensating for the lack of schema descriptions. This adds value beyond the schema.
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 'List all indexes for a specific table,' specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_table_structure, which might have similar functionality.
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 alternative tools. The description only states what the tool does, without any when-not or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.