Retrieve all base tables from a SQL database, including their schema and names. Optionally specify a database to inspect.
List all base tables in the database, returning their schema and name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| database | No | Database to inspect; omit to use the default |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Input schema / properties / databaseAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Database to inspect; omit to use the default",
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the operation returns schema and name, which implies a read-only metadata listing, but it does not mention potential costs, permission requirements, or whether only the default database scope is affected beyond the optional parameter. For a simple list operation this is adequate but minimal.
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 that front-loads the main action and resource before mentioning return values. There is no redundant wording 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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently communicates what the tool does and what it returns. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though it could improve by explicitly distinguishing itself from describeTable.
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 coverage is 100% and the single optional parameter is already clearly described as 'Database to inspect; omit to use the default'. The description adds no new meaning beyond using the phrase 'in the database', so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('all base tables'), and it states the returned information (schema and name). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like listDatabases, query, and describeTable without needing to inspect them.
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 clearly implies it should be used to enumerate base tables in a database, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer a sibling tool such as describeTable or query. There are no exclusions or alternative routing statements, so the usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.