List schemas and tables of a source connection, optionally filtered by schema, for quick structural inspection.
List schemas and tables of a source connection.
Args: connection_id: The connection to introspect. schema: Optional schema name to filter tables.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| schema | No | ||
| connection_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does 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. The verb 'List' clearly indicates a read-only operation with no side effects, which is sufficient for transparency. However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or that no data is modified. Given the simplicity of a listing operation, this is acceptable but could be more explicit.
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 concise, with the main purpose stated in the first sentence and parameters listed in a structured docstring format. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundancy. The structure is front-loaded with the core function, making it easy to scan.
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 tool has an output schema, so return values are documented externally. The description covers the essential behavior (listing schemas and tables) and parameters completely. It lacks explicit error-handling or edge-case details (e.g., invalid connection_id), but for a simple introspection tool this is not a critical gap. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call correctly.
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%, meaning the input schema contains no field descriptions. The description compensates by explicitly explaining both parameters: connection_id as 'The connection to introspect' and schema as 'Optional schema name to filter tables'. This fully covers the semantics, including optionality and default behavior, adding significant value beyond the schema.
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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('schemas and tables of a source connection'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like preview_connection or query_connection, which imply different actions. The purpose is immediately obvious and unambiguous.
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 implies when to use the tool (to introspect a connection's schema), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Given the sibling tools (preview_connection, query_connection, list_connections), the agent must infer the right choice from context. There is no guidance on exclusions or prerequisites, so usage guidance is adequate but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.