List the tables and columns of this workspace's own database. Call this before db.query or db.execute to learn what exists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| in_workspace | No | Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / in_workspaceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected.",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered externally. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the workspace-scoped read behavior ('this workspace's own database') and the recommended sequencing relative to db.query/db.execute. It does not describe the return shape or any size limits, keeping it short of a 5.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler, with the purpose front-loaded ahead of the routing advice. Every clause earns its place.
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 zero-required-param, read-only introspection tool with full annotation coverage and full schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient. The only mild gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not sketch the return shape (e.g., nested tables/columns structure), though 'tables and columns' implies it.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single optional param in_workspace is already well documented in the schema (including its non-persistent, session-isolated behavior). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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 (tables and columns of this workspace's own database), and the phrase 'this workspace's own database' disambiguates it from the sibling management tools db_create/db_query/db_execute. An agent can tell immediately what this returns and how it differs from the DML/DQL siblings.
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 names the alternatives ('Call this before db.query or db.execute') and states the condition that selects it ('to learn what exists'). This is textbook when-to-use guidance pointing at the exact sibling tools an agent would otherwise reach for first.
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.