Lists all indexes on a specified MySQL table, helping you inspect keys, uniqueness, and query performance.
Show all indexes of a specific table.
Args: table_name: Name of the table.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| table_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; "Show" implies a read-only, non-destructive lookup, which is the main behavioral signal an agent needs. It does not state whether the table must exist, whether the call fails or returns empty for a missing table, or any permission requirements.
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 core sentence is front-loaded and free of waste. The trailing "Args:" block is auto-generated boilerplate that repeats the schema and adds no information, slightly diluting an otherwise tight definition.
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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema covering return values, the description is nearly sufficient: the resource and scope are clear, and no return-format explanation is needed. The remaining gap is naming semantics and the missing-table behavior.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, but the Args block only restates the parameter name ("Name of the table"). It says nothing about whether the name must be schema-qualified, case-sensitive, or whether a missing table is an error versus an empty result.
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?
"Show all indexes of a specific table" gives a concrete verb (Show) plus resource (indexes) and scope (one table), which distinguishes it from list_tables and describe_table. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction rather than being told.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is mentioned. In particular, get_create_table likely also surfaces index definitions, but the description says nothing about which tool to prefer when the agent only needs index metadata versus full DDL.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.