Skip to main content
Glama
HatriGt

HANA Cloud MCP Server

by HatriGt

hana_list_schemas

Retrieve all schema names from a HANA Cloud database to view available data structures and organize database objects.

Instructions

List all schemas in the HANA database

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that executes the hana_list_schemas tool logic, querying schemas via QueryExecutor and formatting the response.
    static async listSchemas(args) {
      logger.tool('hana_list_schemas');
      
      try {
        const schemas = await QueryExecutor.getSchemas();
        const formattedSchemas = Formatters.formatSchemaList(schemas);
        
        return Formatters.createResponse(formattedSchemas);
      } catch (error) {
        logger.error('Error listing schemas:', error.message);
        return Formatters.createErrorResponse('Error listing schemas', error.message);
      }
    }
  • Tool definition including name, description, and input schema for hana_list_schemas.
    {
      name: "hana_list_schemas",
      description: "List all schemas in the HANA database",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {},
        required: []
      }
    },
  • Registration of all tools including hana_list_schemas mapped to SchemaTools.listSchemas in the TOOL_IMPLEMENTATIONS object.
    const TOOL_IMPLEMENTATIONS = {
      hana_show_config: ConfigTools.showConfig,
      hana_test_connection: ConfigTools.testConnection,
      hana_show_env_vars: ConfigTools.showEnvVars,
      hana_list_schemas: SchemaTools.listSchemas,
      hana_list_tables: TableTools.listTables,
      hana_describe_table: TableTools.describeTable,
      hana_list_indexes: IndexTools.listIndexes,
      hana_describe_index: IndexTools.describeIndex,
      hana_execute_query: QueryTools.executeQuery
    };
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List all schemas') but doesn't describe the return format (e.g., list of schema names, JSON structure), pagination, permissions needed, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, and there's no unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details (e.g., output format) that would be helpful for an agent. With no annotations or output schema, the description should ideally provide more context about the return value, but it's adequate for a simple list operation.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools. It correctly implies no inputs are required.

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?

The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all schemas in the HANA database'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like hana_list_tables and hana_list_indexes by specifying schemas rather than tables or indexes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other schema-related tools (none exist in siblings), so it's not a perfect 5.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., connection requirements), when not to use it, or how it relates to siblings like hana_describe_table or hana_execute_query. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/HatriGt/hana-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server