list_tablesRetrieves all table names from a specified MySQL database, providing an overview of its structure to help you choose which tables to query.
列出指定数据库中的所有表
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| database | Yes | 数据库名称 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It clearly states the result is all tables in the specified database, but it does not disclose whether views/system tables are included, ordering, error behavior, or permission requirements. This is minimal but acceptable for a simple read-only enumeration.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter list operation and every word contributes meaning.
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?
The one required parameter is fully documented and an output schema exists, so return structure does not need to be explained in the description. The only gap is lack of scoping detail about what counts as 'all tables', but for a simple enumeration tool this is mostly complete.
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 input schema already documents the single database parameter with 100% coverage as '数据库名称', so the description adds no new semantic detail. The description only restates that the target is the specified database, which matches the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.
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 the specific operation (列出/list) applied to a clear resource (所有表/all tables in a specified database). This distinguishes it from sibling list_databases, which lists databases, and describe_table, which targets a single table.
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?
No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are named. The wording implies it should be chosen when enumerating tables within a specific database rather than listing databases or inspecting a single table, but the agent is left to infer this from the sibling tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.