elements_list_workbook_queriesList generated SQL queries for every element in a Sigma workbook by passing its workbook ID. Review query logic across all workbook elements.
List generated SQL queries for all elements in a workbook.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workbook_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., whether the query text is returned verbatim, whether it reflects materialized state, or how it differs from element-level query retrieval), so it contributes almost nothing beyond the structured fields.
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 tight sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though it is arguably too terse for the surrounding sibling ambiguity.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. For a simple list tool this is minimally adequate, but the ambiguity with sibling query-listing tools and the undocumented parameter leave it short of 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 coverage is 0%, but there is only one self-evident required parameter (workbook_id). The description implies the workbook scoping but adds no format, type, or identification detail beyond what the parameter name conveys. Baseline 3 for a single obvious parameter.
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+resource: lists generated SQL queries scoped to a workbook. This is distinguishable from elements_get_element_query (single element) and workbooks_list_report_queries (report scope), though it does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The sibling set contains closely related tools (elements_get_element_query, elements_list_workbook_elements, workbooks_list_report_queries), yet the description never tells the agent which condition selects this tool over those.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.