Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
dbeaver-mcp

dbeaver-mcp

by bnuprst
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

List tables and views

list_tables
Read-only

Lists tables, views and materialized views with row counts and comments, and filters by name or comment so you can inspect a DBeaver database schema.

Instructions

Lists tables, views and materialized views with estimated row counts and comments. Partitions are hidden (only the parent is shown). Filter matches table names and comments.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "connection": "<connection>"
    },
    "name": "list_tables"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax relations to return. Default 500.
filterNoName or comment filter. 'policy' = contains, 'policy*' = starts with, or a LIKE pattern with % (case-insensitive).
schemaNoOnly this schema. Default: all user schemas.
connectionYesDBeaver connection name (as shown in DBeaver), its id, or project/name. See list_connections.
include_viewsNoInclude views and materialized views. Default true.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-open-world profile, so the description earns credit for adding genuinely new behavior: partitions are collapsed into their parent, row counts are estimates, and the filter also scans comments. It does not mention the default 500-row cap or truncation behavior, which the schema covers only implicitly.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is listed, followed by the partition-hiding caveat that would otherwise surprise an agent. Nothing is redundant or padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing results and does so: relations plus estimated row counts, comments, and the parent-only partition rule. Only the ordering and default result-count behavior are left to the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented. The description's note that the filter matches table names and comments largely restates the schema's 'Name or comment filter' without adding syntax details like the '*' or LIKE pattern forms, so it sits at the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists tables, views and materialized views') and adds what is returned (estimated row counts and comments). It distinguishes itself from list_schemas and describe_table by scope, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before describe_table, but the description never says when to prefer this over list_schemas or describe_table, nor any prerequisite beyond the connection parameter.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools