List foreign key relationships for a specific table to reveal how it connects to other tables in a MySQL database.
Show foreign key relationships 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 establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds table scoping but does not disclose the output format or the scope of relationships (e.g., referencing vs. referenced tables). This is acceptable but lacks richer behavioral context beyond the annotations.
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. It conveys the core functionality efficiently without redundant phrasing, perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 introspection tool, the description is adequate, but without an output schema it does not explain what the returned foreign key relationship data looks like or whether it includes both directions. This leaves minor gaps for an agent needing to parse results or anticipate behavior.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description's phrase 'for a specific table' aligns with the required 'table' parameter but adds no additional semantic detail 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 states a clear verb ('Show') and resource ('foreign key relationships') scoped to a specific table, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_table_indexes and describe_table. However, it could be more explicit about whether it returns incoming, outgoing, or both types of relationships, leaving slight ambiguity.
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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as describe_table or get_table_indexes. It only implies its purpose without naming contexts, exclusions, or preferred alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.