Send database schema details and a natural-language question to the configured LLM to get SQL suggestions without executing any generated SQL.
Send selected schema metadata and question to configured LLM; never execute its SQL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| schema | No | ||
| tables | Yes | ||
| database | Yes | ||
| question | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint=true annotation is consistent with 'never execute its SQL,' and the description reinforces it. It also adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations: the operation depends on a configured LLM and ships selected schema metadata off-box, which matches openWorldHint=true and matters for data-egress decisions.
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 tight sentence, front-loading the core behavior and ending on the key safety boundary. No filler; every clause carries weight.
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?
Because an output schema exists, return values need not be described, and annotations already cover safety. However, with 4 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no explicit when-to-use guidance, the definition leaves real gaps for an agent deciding how to populate tables/database/schema.
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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description is the only place parameter meaning could be added. It loosely gestures at 'schema metadata' and 'question' but says nothing about the database, tables, or optional schema parameters, leaving the required inputs under-explained.
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 states a specific action (send schema metadata + question to a configured LLM) and draws a hard boundary against execution ('never execute its SQL'), which separates it from execute_sql and query_sql. It is clear what the tool produces, though it never explicitly names the output as SQL suggestions.
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?
Usage is only implied: the 'never execute' clause hints you would use this when you want SQL generated rather than run, but it never states when to prefer suggest_sql over explain_query or the execute_* siblings, nor what prerequisites (configured LLM) exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.