list_class_hierarchyRetrieve CUBRID class inheritance relationships for all classes or a single table. Use it to inspect how database classes are structured hierarchically.
Return CUBRID CLASS inheritance relationships (all classes or one class).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| connection | No | ||
| table_name | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'Return', implying a read operation, but does not mention whether a connection is required, any error conditions, or the nature of the output (even though an output schema exists). No side effects or performance traits are disclosed.
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, concise sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core purpose. However, it is perhaps too brief, sacrificing necessary detail for brevity.
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?
Given no annotations, zero schema description coverage, and an output schema that exists, the description should provide more context. It lacks explanation of what 'class' means in CUBRID, what the output looks like, and any usage scenarios. An agent without domain expertise would struggle to invoke it correctly.
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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It indirectly clarifies table_name (all vs. one class) but gives no explanation for connection. It does not state that both parameters are optional or provide any syntax or type details. The added value is minimal.
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 clearly states the action (Return) and the resource (CUBRID CLASS inheritance relationships), and distinguishes scope ('all classes or one class'). While it does not explicitly name sibling tools, the purpose is specific enough to differentiate from tools like describe_table or schema_definitions.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The mention of 'all classes or one class' hints at the table_name parameter but does not provide context such as prerequisites or scenarios. There is no exclusion of when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.