Lists objects in a PostgreSQL schema, letting you choose table, view, sequence, or extension types to inspect Multigres cluster databases.
List objects in a schema.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| object_type | No | Object type: table, view, sequence or extension (default table) | |
| schema_name | Yes | Schema name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — nothing about what a returned "object" contains, whether results are paginated, or how object_type filtering affects output.
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 six-word sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse to carry any routing or return-value 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 simple, fully annotated, read-only listing tool this is minimally adequate: parameters are fully documented in the schema and the annotations establish safety. However, with no output schema present, the description could have said what is returned (names, types, counts), and it offers no sibling routing.
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 100%, with object_type documenting its enum-like values (table, view, sequence, extension) and its default. The description contributes nothing beyond this, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 and resource ("List objects") scoped to "a schema", which is unambiguous about what it does. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_object_details or list_schemas, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_schemas for schema discovery or get_object_details for inspecting a single object. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.