Retrieve indexes on an Oracle table, including their columns, uniqueness, and status. Use it to inspect indexing for query tuning or schema review.
List indexes on a table with their columns, uniqueness and status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| table | Yes | Table name. | |
| schema | No | Schema (owner) of the object. Optional — defaults to the server's current schema; omit rather than guess. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.16.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose what is surfaced (columns, uniqueness, status), but says nothing about pagination, permissions, or exhaustive-vs-filtered behavior. The read-only nature is only implied by 'List'.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, leading with the verb and resource and closing on return contents.
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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers scope and the salient return fields. It would be stronger with a note on result ordering or volume, but it is largely sufficient to invoke correctly.
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 schema fully documents both 'table' and 'schema' (including the helpful 'omit rather than guess' default note), so the description adds no parameter detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb (List) + resource (indexes) + scope (on a table) + what is returned (columns, uniqueness, status). An agent can immediately tell it apart from create_index or suggest_index, though it never names the closest sibling list_unused_indexes.
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?
Usage is implied by the scope 'on a table' but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no routing to alternatives like list_unused_indexes. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.