List saved queries
list_queriesList the team's saved queries, with their SQL, folder and declared variables.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| queries | Yes |
list_queriesList the team's saved queries, with their SQL, folder and declared variables.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| queries | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / queries / items / additionalPropertiesPrevious value: -trueNew value: +{}Output schema / properties / queries / items / properties / variables / anyOfPrevious value: -[
- {
- "items": {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "properties": {
- "name": {
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "type": {
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- }
- },
- "type": "object"
- },
- "type": "array"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "name": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "type": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully notes what each returned entry contains, but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or ordering across a potentially large team 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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then adds the useful detail about returned fields. Nothing is wasted.
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?
The tool is simple (zero params, read-only) and an output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out. Only the lack of sibling differentiation and result-set size guidance keeps it from a 5.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 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 (team's saved queries) and adds the meaningful payload contents (SQL, folder, declared variables). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_query, which retrieves a single query, 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_query, run_saved_query, or save_query. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the enumeration entry point.
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.