Data Platform MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_procedures

List cached procedures and functions, optionally filtered by schema, to discover available database routines for querying.

Instructions

List cached procedures and functions, optionally restricted to one schema.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "connection_id": "<connection_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_procedures"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`schema`	No
`connection_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`procedures`	Yes
`cache_status`	Yes	Observable cache freshness and last refresh state.
`connection_id`	Yes
`schema_filter`	Yes
`contract_version`	No		1.0.0

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.9.0Aug 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the list is from a cache and that schema filtering is optional, adding useful context. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, or the nature of the returned data beyond what the output schema may show.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is one concise and front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core purpose efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list tool with an output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks parameter semantics and usage guidance, and it does not fully clarify the caching behavior's implications, leaving some gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter explanation. It only hints at the 'schema' parameter through 'restricted to one schema' but does not explain the required 'connection_id' or provide format/optionality details for either parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (List), the resource (cached procedures and functions), and the optional restriction (one schema). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_tables and list_schemas by specifying procedures/functions and the caching behavior.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many list_* siblings (e.g., list_tables, list_triggers). It does not mention any exclusions, alternatives, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.