Lists available database dumps in the current project. Use this to identify dump files for restore or inspection.
Lista los dumps disponibles en el proyecto actual.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "db_dump_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, performance implications, or what 'current project' means. The one-line description offers only the basic purpose, not the behavioral traits an agent would need to invoke safely.
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 is concise and front-loaded. Every word earns its place, conveying the essential action without redundancy. Ideal for a simple listing tool.
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?
While the tool is simple, the description does not explain what constitutes a 'dump', whether it lists all dumps or filters them, or what the response contains. Since there is no output schema, the description could have elaborated on the return format or scope, making it only minimally complete for a tool of this complexity.
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 has zero parameters and the schema is trivially complete. Per the baseline for tools with no parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate since there is no additional parameter meaning to convey; the description does not need to add parameter details.
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 clearly states the tool's function: listing available dumps in the current project. It uses a specific verb and resource ('list dumps') and the context ('current project') adds clarity. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like db_dump (create) and db_restore (restore), though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites (e.g., whether a project must be selected). It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.