Retrieve every table in a SQLite database with its row count, enabling schema exploration and query planning.
List every table in the database with its row count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and determinism profile is covered. The description adds only that row counts are included in the listing, which is modest additional context; with an output schema present, return details need not be repeated.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the returned attribute are both stated immediately.
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 zero-parameter discovery tool with a full output schema and annotations covering safety, the description supplies everything needed to invoke it correctly. It could go further by noting scope caveats (e.g., only accessible tables), but nothing essential is missing.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed, though it never explicitly says the listing is unfiltered/unpaginated.
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?
States a specific verb (list) and resource (every table in the database) and adds the returned detail (row count), so an agent knows this is a discovery/inventory tool. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like describe_table or sample_rows, but the resource is distinct enough to distinguish them in practice.
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?
Usage is only implied: a zero-parameter listing tool that obviously serves as an entry point for schema exploration. It never states when to prefer this over run_query or describe_table, nor any prerequisite such as connection/permission requirements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.