Retrieve the column names, data types, and schema details for any table in a MySQL database. Use this tool to inspect table structure without modifying data.
Show columns and schema for a specific table
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| table | Yes | Table name | |
| database | No | Optional database to read from for this call only, without changing the active connection |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds little behavioral context beyond restating the operation, though it does clarify the expected return content (columns and schema). No contradiction exists.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's purpose and scope.
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 introspection tool with two well-documented parameters and rich annotations, the description is sufficient. It states what the tool returns and the scope, and no critical usage information is missing.
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 both 'table' and 'database' already documented clearly in the input schema. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score 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 states a clear verb ('Show'), a specific resource ('columns and schema'), and a scope ('for a specific table'). It is easily distinguished from siblings like list_tables, get_table_indexes, and get_table_sample, which cover different aspects of table inspection.
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 phrase 'for a specific table' gives clear context for when to use this tool, implying it is for inspecting one table's structure rather than listing tables or examining indexes/foreign keys. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.