List tables in a CASLIB, showing in-memory tables with row and column counts plus source tables or files not loaded; optionally filter a SingleStore database.
Tables in one caslib: the ones loaded in memory (rows, columns) and the source tables / files not loaded.
database: for a SingleStore caslib, its database (only its tables are listed).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| caslib | Yes | ||
| database | No | ||
| connection | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.0Input schema / properties / connectionAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Connection"
+}v0.10.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safe read-only nature. The description adds useful behavioral context about what is returned—loaded versus unloaded tables and row/column counts—but does not discuss permissions, result size, or any filtering behavior beyond the database scoping note.
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?
Two compact sentences are front-loaded with the core purpose, then the special database scoping. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description reasonably explains the shape of the result (in-memory vs source tables, rows/columns). However, the undocumented connection parameter and absence of pagination or result-size expectations leave gaps an agent would want filled.
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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains the database parameter for SingleStore caslibs and implies that caslib selects the caslib to inspect, but the connection parameter is never mentioned and no format details are given for caslib or database.
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 states a specific resource (tables in one caslib) and clearly delineates two result categories: in-memory loaded tables with rows/columns, and source tables/files not loaded. It is easy to distinguish from siblings like cas_caslibs or cas_columns, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.
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 resource scope (inspect tables within a given caslib), and the database note gives a narrow condition. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus sibling listing tools such as schema_explorer_tables or sas_tables.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.