Retrieve a page of BigQuery datasets for a specified or default project to explore available data assets. Use page tokens and size limits to browse results.
List one page of datasets in project_id or the configured default project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | ||
| page_size | No | ||
| page_token | No | ||
| project_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two real behavioral facts beyond that: results are returned one page at a time (pagination is required to enumerate everything) and omitting project_id falls back to the configured default project.
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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource before the scoping clause. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gaps are the undocumented account parameter and page_token continuation semantics, which are minor but real for a paginated list tool.
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% across 4 parameters, so the description has to carry the burden. It clarifies project_id's null/default behavior and implies page_size/page_token through "one page," but leaves the account parameter and the page_size bounds/limit completely unexplained.
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 one page of datasets") plus the scope (project_id or the default project), which is enough to separate it from list_tables and list_projects. It stops short of naming a sibling or contrasting with get_dataset, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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 it (enumerating datasets, with a default-project fallback) but gives no explicit when-not guidance and never points to get_dataset for single-dataset details or list_tables for drill-down. Usage must be inferred from the verb and the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.