Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Elekto MCP for SQL Server

Elekto MCP for SQL Server

Official
by elekto-com-br
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

List schemas

list_schemas
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists user schemas with owners, excluding system schemas, to reveal valid schema names for filtering other tools. For object counts and sizes per schema, use get_schema_summary.

Instructions

Lists the user schemas of a database with their owners, leaving out system schemas. Use it to learn the names the 'schema' filter of the other tools accepts; for object counts and sizes per schema use get_schema_summary instead.

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": {
      "database": "<database>"
    },
    "name": "list_schemas"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
databaseYesName of the database as registered in the configuration.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: system schemas are excluded and owners are included in the output.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the scope constraint front-loaded and the routing guidance relegated to the second sentence. Every clause earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a one-parameter read-only list tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing; scope, exclusions, and sibling routing are all present.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Name of the database as registered in the configuration'). The description references the database implicitly but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb (lists), resource (user schemas of a database), and scope (with owners, excluding system schemas). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling get_schema_summary, which it explicitly names.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit use case ('learn the names the schema filter of the other tools accepts') and names the alternative tool with the condition that selects it (object counts and sizes per schema). No inference required.

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