Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@mhdd_24/flyway-mcp

@mhdd_24/flyway-mcp

by Mhdd-24
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_flyway_projects

List Flyway projects under FLYWAY_ROOT and reveal QA/Dev config availability so you can choose which database projects to repair or migrate.

Instructions

List Flyway projects discovered under FLYWAY_ROOT with QA/Dev config availability.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_flyway_projects"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.3

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only enumeration and it discloses that projects are discovered under FLYWAY_ROOT and that QA/Dev config availability is included, but it says nothing about the return shape, behavior when FLYWAY_ROOT is unset, or whether the listing is cached/truncated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler: verb, resource, scope, and the salient output attribute. It is appropriately sized, though the trailing phrase is slightly compressed into ambiguity.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only listing with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns at a high level (projects plus QA/Dev config availability). The main gap is the absence of any guidance on follow-up actions or the exact shape of the returned entries.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter detail because none exists.

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 (List) and resource (Flyway projects) plus a scoping constraint (discovered under FLYWAY_ROOT) and the QA/Dev config detail. It is distinguishable from the qa_flyway_migration/dev_flyway_migration siblings by being a discovery/listing tool rather than a migration runner, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never mentions the sibling migration tools. An agent could infer this is a discovery step before running a migration, but nothing in the text states that or offers an alternative.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools