astrbot-mcp

sqlite_list_tables

List tables and views in a SQLite database to inspect its schema. Provide the database filename or sandbox path to retrieve all table names.

Instructions

列出 SQLite 数据库中的表和视图。

Args: database: 数据库文件名（相对于 sqlite.root）或沙箱内的路径。

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": {
      "database": "<database>"
    },
    "name": "sqlite_list_tables"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`database`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuinely useful trait: the database argument resolves either relative to sqlite.root or as a sandbox path. However, it says nothing about read-only safety, error behavior for missing databases, or whether output is paginated.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

One summary sentence followed by a focused Args note; front-loaded and free of filler. Slightly more could be said about scope, but nothing present is wasted.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a simple one-parameter read-only listing tool, the description covers the one non-obvious aspect (path resolution), leaving only minor gaps around error cases and sibling routing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema contributes nothing about the single 'database' parameter. The description compensates by explaining path resolution semantics (relative to sqlite.root or sandbox-absolute), which is exactly the meaning an agent needs to supply a valid value.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb+resource combination ('list tables and views in a SQLite database'), which is clearly distinct from sibling introspection tools like sqlite_describe or sqlite_query. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the first-step introspection call before describing or querying. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sqlite_describe, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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