Lista os catálogos do Unity Catalog visíveis ao PAT (name, comment, owner).
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "databricks_list_catalogs"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already provide the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety profile. The description adds context beyond annotations by noting that the returned catalogs are filtered by PAT visibility and by listing the fields returned (name, comment, owner). No behavioral contradictions exist.
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 succinct, front-loaded sentence that covers action, scope, and output fields with no filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple read-only list tool.
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 read-only list tool, the description covers the core resource, authorization scope, and returned fields, while annotations cover safety. However, the unexplained `account` parameter and lack of any output schema leave a meaningful gap in the overall completeness.
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 single optional `account` parameter has no schema description (0% coverage), and the tool description never mentions `account` or how it should be used. An agent cannot tell whether `account` is an account ID, workspace identifier, or how it relates to the PAT. The property name provides only an implicit hint.
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 action verb ('Lista') and identifies the exact resource ('catálogos do Unity Catalog'), plus the authorization scope ('visíveis ao PAT') and returned metadata fields. This is unambiguous and clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like databricks_list_schemas and databricks_list_tables.
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 description establishes clear context: use this tool when you need Unity Catalog catalogs accessible to the current PAT. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource and scope make the intended use clear enough for this simple list operation.
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.