fastero_list_queriesList a project's saved queries, newest first, each with its _id (the queryId other query tools take), name, SQL text (string) and the connection it runs on (conn, with its name and type; null once that connection was deleted). Saved queries are what reports and alerts run. fastero_run_sql runs SQL without saving it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes | The project’s id, from fastero_list_projects. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / projectId / descriptionAdded value: +"The project’s id, from fastero_list_projects."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the read-only, non-destructive profile, and the description adds real behavioral context: results are ordered newest first, the _id is the queryId other tools accept, and conn is null once the connection is deleted. This output/nullability detail is valuable given there is no output schema.
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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then return fields, then the disambiguation. No filler.
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?
Despite no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields and their semantics (name, SQL text, conn with name/type, nullability), plus ordering and the routing to run_sql. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this list tool.
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 single projectId parameter is already documented as coming from fastero_list_projects. The description adds no further parameter syntax or format detail, so the 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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (a project's saved queries) and immediately distinguishes itself from fastero_run_sql. An agent can identify the tool's scope without opening the schema.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent away from fastero_run_sql ('runs SQL without saving it'), clarifying the saved-vs-ad-hoc distinction. It does not mention other query siblings like fastero_get_query or fastero_create_query, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.