Lists all tables and views in a SQLite database with row counts, enabling schema exploration and query planning.
List all tables, views, and row counts in a SQLite database.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| db_path | Yes | Absolute or relative path to SQLite database file. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation and it discloses the return content (tables, views, row counts), which is useful. It does not say whether row counts are exact or estimated (which can be expensive on large DBs), whether system/internal tables are included, or anything about permissions.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource and the returned fields with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and the environment (SQLite). Minor gaps remain around row-count cost and inclusion of internal tables, but an agent has enough 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 coverage is 100%, so db_path is already documented as a path to the SQLite file. The description adds no further meaning such as whether the path must exist or how relative paths resolve, so the schema does all the work.
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 enumerates exactly what it returns: tables, views, and row counts in a SQLite database. This naturally separates it from describe_table and execute_query, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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 on when to call this versus describe_table, execute_query, or explain_query, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer that this is the discovery step before describe_table.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.