Retrieve all database schemas to enable SQL queries and database introspection across Oracle databases.
List all schemas in the database
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_schemas"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists schemas but doesn't describe what 'list' entails—whether it returns names only, full metadata, pagination behavior, permission requirements, or potential side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool and front-loads the essential 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?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It doesn't explain what 'list' returns (e.g., schema names, metadata, format) or how it differs from sibling tools. Given the simplicity of the tool, the description meets basic needs but could be more informative.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to document). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which aligns with the empty input schema. No additional parameter semantics are needed or provided.
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 the action ('List') and target resource ('all schemas in the database'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_tables' or 'describe_table', which would require mentioning that this tool returns schema-level metadata rather than table-level information.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_tables' or 'describe_table'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.