db_schemaRetrieve database schema (tables, columns, foreign keys) from the project's .env connection; supports MySQL, Postgres, SQLite. Pass a table to narrow it, read-only.
Tables, columns and foreign keys of the project's database (connection read from the project's .env: Laravel DB_* or DATABASE_URL; MySQL, Postgres, SQLite). Pass a table to narrow it. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| table | No | Only this table |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered (and 'Read-only' largely repeats it). The description adds real value beyond the annotations by disclosing that the connection is read from the project's .env (Laravel DB_* or DATABASE_URL) and which engines are supported (MySQL, Postgres, SQLite), which tells the agent where the data comes from.
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?
Three short clauses, front-loaded with the resource, then the connection detail, then the narrowing option and the read-only guarantee. No filler, and a reader can stop after the first clause and still know what the tool does.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must describe the return shape, and it does name the returned elements (tables, columns, foreign keys). It could go slightly further on how results are structured or whether foreign keys are nested, but for a single-parameter introspection tool with annotations already covering safety this is nearly complete.
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 coverage is 100% and the lone parameter is documented as 'Only this table', so the baseline is 3. The description improves on that by clarifying the omitted-parameter default ('Pass a table to narrow it' implies all tables are returned otherwise), which the schema does not state.
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?
States a specific resource (tables, columns, foreign keys of the project's database) with the verb implied as introspection, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling db_query tool, which is the most likely source of confusion, so it stops 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?
'Pass a table to narrow it' implies the exploratory/overview use case, and 'Read-only' signals it is for inspection rather than mutation. However, it never says when to choose this over db_query or when not to use it, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.