Retrieve sample rows from a MySQL table to preview its data. Specify an optional limit (1-50) and database to inspect content without modifying the database.
Get sample rows from a table
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of rows to return (1-50, default 5) | |
| 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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal behavioral context—'sample rows' implies a limited set but doesn't clarify ordering (e.g., first N vs random) or any other runtime behavior. Given annotations cover the safety profile, the bar is lower, but the description still lacks explicit behavioral detail beyond what the schema already conveys.
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, direct sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose immediately and avoids any filler. This is exemplary conciseness.
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 sampling tool with 3 parameters and full schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It clearly states the resource (rows from a table) and implies a limited result set. The optional database parameter is not mentioned in the description, but the schema covers it. With annotations covering safety, nothing critical is missing, though it could note whether rows are returned in any particular order.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage, with all parameters described (table, limit, database). The description adds no extra meaning about parameters—it merely mentions 'sample rows', which loosely relates to the limit parameter but doesn't provide syntax or intent beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation.
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 verb ('Get') and resource ('sample rows from a table'), making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes from siblings like describe_table (metadata) and run_query (arbitrary queries) by focusing on sampling rows. However, it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for quick previews, nor does it point to run_query for full queries. No exclusions or alternative routing are given, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.