List visible schemas and per-schema table, view, and object counts for an exact PostgreSQL database in DBeaver, helping you explore structure before writing queries.
列出一个DBeaver连接下精确database中的可见schema及每个schema的表、视图和对象计数。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| database | Yes | 通过list_databases发现的精确PostgreSQL数据库名；不得猜测或传地址。 | |
| connection | Yes | DBeaver中已有PostgreSQL连接的显示名称或连接ID；不得传地址、账号或密码。 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that only visible schemas are returned and that table/view/object counts are included, but it does not cover permission requirements, pagination, or error 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?
One front-loaded sentence states scope and return content without filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool.
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?
This is a low-complexity listing tool: annotations cover safety, schema covers both required params, and the description states the returned content (schemas and counts). Missing output format and explicit usage sequencing keep it from being fully complete.
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%; both required parameters have detailed schema-level descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb (列出/list) and resource (可见schema及每个schema的表、视图和对象计数) within an exact DBeaver connection/database. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_databases and table-level tools.
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 tool description gives no when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative guidance. The only routing hint appears in the schema field description for database ('通过list_databases发现...'), not in the description itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.