List saved named queries in AWS Athena, optionally filtered by work group, with pagination support for large collections.
List named queries
Args: work_group: Work group to filter by max_results: Maximum number of results to return next_token: Token for pagination
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| next_token | No | ||
| work_group | No | ||
| max_results | No |
| 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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints at pagination through 'Token for pagination', but it never states that this is a read-only listing, how pagination works, whether results are ordered, or how the response should be consumed. For a tool with no annotation coverage, the behavioral details are too thin.
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 tight and front-loaded: the operation statement appears first, followed by a minimal, focused Args block. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail; every line earns its place.
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?
The operation is simple, all parameters are covered, and an output schema exists, so the return shape does not need to be explained. However, the description lacks context about what named queries are, how they relate to work groups, and when to choose this tool over sibling tools. It is minimally viable but not richly 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 0%, but the description compensates by giving a functional gloss for every parameter: work_group filters, max_results caps the returned count, and next_token handles pagination. These add meaning beyond the bare schema titles and types, though they remain brief and do not specify ranges, defaults behavior, or the source of next_token.
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 opens with 'List named queries', a clear verb+resource statement that tells the agent exactly what operation this is. It differentiates from sibling list tools like list_work_groups, list_tables, and list_query_executions by naming the resource, though it adds no context beyond what the tool name itself already communicates.
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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool instead of related siblings such as get_named_query, create_named_query, or list_query_executions. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria. The only content is the operation statement and terse parameter glosses.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.