Apache Doris MCP Server

show_tables

Retrieve a list of all tables in a specified database, with optional pattern filtering for table names.

Instructions

List all tables in the specified database.

Args: database: The database name like: Optional pattern to filter table names

Returns: List[Dict]: A list of table information dictionaries

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": "show_tables"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`database`	Yes
`like`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1May 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the return format as a list of dictionaries, but lacks details on potential side effects (none expected for a listing operation) or authorization needs. This is adequate for a simple read tool.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured with Args and Returns sections. It is concise but includes all necessary parts. Minor improvement could be dropping the Returns section if redundant, but it adds clarity.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential: purpose, parameter semantics, and return format. It lacks details on filter syntax and result ordering, but for a simple listing tool, it is mostly complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, meaning the schema has no descriptions. The description adds meaning by specifying 'database: The database name' and 'like: Optional pattern to filter table names,' which goes beyond the schema's bare type and title. However, it does not specify the pattern format (e.g., SQL LIKE syntax).

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?

The description clearly states 'List all tables in the specified database,' which is a specific verb and resource. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like show_databases (which lists databases) and execute_query (which runs SQL).

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?

The description implies usage for listing tables but does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. However, given the distinct sibling tools, confusion is unlikely.

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

Deploy Server