Inspect columns, keys, foreign-key relationships, and indexes for specified tables in a database to understand table structure and relationships before writing read-only analytical SQL queries.
Inspect columns, keys, foreign-key relationships and indexes of discovered tables.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| database_id | Yes | ||
| table_names | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Inspect' strongly implies a read-only operation and the description discloses what schema details are examined, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only safety, permissions, or side effects.
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 wasted words. It efficiently communicates the tool's scope and inspected objects.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained in the description. However, with no annotations and 0% parameter description coverage, the definition leaves gaps around parameter meaning and usage context that the description could have filled.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It implies table names via 'discovered tables' but never explains database_id or table_names, leaving both required parameters semantically underspecified.
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, 'Inspect', and names the exact schema elements returned: columns, keys, foreign-key relationships, and indexes. It is clearly distinct from list_tables in substance, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools.
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 phrase 'discovered tables' implies this tool is used after tables have been listed, giving some contextual usage guidance. However, it does not state when to use this versus list_tables, run_query, or explain_query, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.