Lists Firestore collection IDs at the database root or beneath a specified document path, so agents can explore database structure and locate collections.
List collection ids at the database root or under a document (listCollectionIds).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Document path; omit for the root collections | |
| database | No | Firestore database id; default (default) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the safety profile, and 'List' reasonably signals a non-mutating read. It does not address pagination behavior, permission requirements, or whether nested subcollections are returned, which are real concerns for a listCollectionIds-style call.
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 front-loaded sentence with the operation stated first and the scope second. The parenthetical API method name is marginally useful for cross-referencing but is the only semi-redundant element.
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?
For a two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies the essential scope and gestures at the return value (collection ids). Additional behavior detail would help but nothing critical is missing.
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 100%, so the parameter descriptions already explain path and database fully. The description reinforces the path semantics by stating the root-vs-document distinction, adding a little meaning on top of the schema, so it edges above the baseline 3.
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 and resource ('List collection ids') plus the two scopes it operates over, root or a document. That distinguishes it from firestore_get, firestore_query, and firestore_count, though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied by the scoping clause -- omit path for root collections -- but the tool offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternatives such as firestore_query for reading document contents. An agent must infer this is the discovery/enumeration step.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.