List all tables in a database schema to quickly inspect available data structures and plan queries.
List all tables in a database schema
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": "db_list_tables"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| schema | No | Database schema name | public |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose without any caveats, such as whether system tables are included, whether permissions are needed, or what the return format looks like. For a read-only tool, it does not explicitly confirm safety or side-effect-free behavior.
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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core functionality immediately. There is zero redundant information or filler.
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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any mention of return values, whether it includes views/system tables, or any edge cases. While not a mutation tool, a bit more context about the result set would improve completeness.
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 schema already documents the 'schema' parameter with a clear description and default value, giving 100% coverage. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, simply restating that tables are listed 'in a database schema'. This matches the baseline for schemas with full parameter documentation.
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' and a clear resource 'all tables in a database schema'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like db_describe_table (which describes a single table) and db_execute_query (which runs arbitrary SQL).
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of enumerating tables before querying or avoiding direct information_schema queries. Usage is only implied by the tool name and description, not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.