get_table_indexesRetrieve indexes for a specific MySQL table to inspect schema structure, primary keys, and performance constraints for read-only database queries.
Show indexes 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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds only the scoping detail that a specific table is required, which is consistent but not a major behavioral disclosure.
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 one short sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and target. Every word contributes meaning.
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 metadata query, the description plus schema and annotations are adequate: the required parameter is clear and the return concept is implied by 'indexes'. No output schema is present, but the tool's purpose is simple enough that this is not a significant gap.
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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'a specific table' aligns with the required 'table' parameter but does not add extra meaning 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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('indexes for a specific table'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like get_foreign_keys and describe_table, which target different metadata.
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 provides no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as describe_table or get_foreign_keys. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context cues beyond the general idea of showing indexes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.