Retrieve indexes for a MySQL table by providing its name. Optionally specify a database to inspect.
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, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Show' aligns with those. The description adds little behavioral detail beyond that, such as return shape or behavior for nonexistent tables, but it does not contradict 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose.
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 tool with complete schema coverage, the one-line description is mostly sufficient. It lacks any detail about the returned index information or how this tool relates to describe_table, but the core invocation requirements are well covered.
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' clearly described in the input schema. The description itself adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('indexes') scoped to a particular table, making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is distinct from siblings such as list_tables, get_foreign_keys, and get_table_sample by naming indexes as the specific focus.
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 implies the tool should be used when an agent needs index metadata for a table, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over related tools like describe_table or get_foreign_keys. There are no stated exclusions or alternative conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.