Retrieve the complete schema of queryable views, including columns and their documented meanings, to understand available data structure before querying.
List every queryable view, its columns, and their documented meanings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose the scope and content of the result ('every queryable view, its columns, and their documented meanings'), but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only, side-effect-free operation or describe any limitations.
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 sentence with no filler or redundancy. The verb and primary object are front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning.
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 zero-parameter schema introspection tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential promise and scope adequately. It could add an explicit connection to query authoring or mention that it is read-only, but these are minor gaps given the low complexity.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description includes no parameter information, but none is needed because the input schema is empty and the tool's behavior is not parameter-driven.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clearly defined resource: every queryable view, its columns, and documented meanings. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like run_sql, which executes queries, and get_brief, which fetches a single brief.
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?
The description strongly implies the tool is for discovering schema structure, but it never explicitly states when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of using this before run_sql or when exploration of available views is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.