Most used tables and most active users over the last days (0: everything stored), from the local copy of the query history (traced runs) and of the plan cache (every execution, no user).
Most used tables and most active users over the last days (0: everything stored), from the local
copy of the query history (traced runs) and of the plan cache (every execution, no user).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already guarantees a safe read, and the description adds real value by disclosing the data provenance: a local copy of the query history (traced runs) plus the plan cache (every execution, no user). The 'no user' caveat around plan cache data is a useful behavioral nuance.
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 that leads with the returned content. Some formatting noise (double backticks around ``days``) and a slightly run-on parenthetical keep it from being maximally clean.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does describe what comes back (most used tables, most active users). But in a large query_history family it omits any routing signal, leaving the agent to guess among many similar siblings.
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 0% for the single 'days' parameter, so the description must carry it, and it does explain the lookback window and the special value 0 = everything stored. However, it does not clarify units or default behavior beyond that, so the compensation is only partial.
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 verb+resource: it returns the most used tables and most active users, with a scoping window. This distinguishes it from generic query_history or query_history_trends siblings, though it does not name an alternative 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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of when another sibling like query_history_trends or query_history would be preferred. The parenthetical about the days parameter is scoping, not usage routing, so the agent is left to infer when this tool applies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.