list_migrationsRetrieve all schema migrations applied to a database in order, using the database ID, to track schema changes and verify migration history.
List all schema migrations that have been applied to a database, in order.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| databaseId | Yes | The database ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose behavioral scope — returns migrations already applied (not pending ones) and returns them ordered — but it omits whether the result is read-only-safe, whether there is pagination or a result cap, and any auth/permission requirements.
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 with no filler; the resource is named first and the scoping qualifier ('applied', 'in order') follows. Every clause earns its place.
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 one-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema listing tool, the description is nearly sufficient — it establishes what is listed and in what order. The remaining gap is limited to return-shape and pagination details, which the lack of an output schema leaves mildly open.
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 100% and the single databaseId parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the implicit notion of 'a database', which maps to that parameter without adding format or constraint detail. Baseline 3 applies.
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 ('List') and resource ('schema migrations') plus a qualifier ('applied to a database, in order'), so an agent can tell it apart from the sibling 'migrate' (which applies them) without opening the schema. It stops short of naming or contrasting any sibling, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.
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 says nothing about when to call this versus alternatives such as 'migrate' (apply new migrations) or 'introspect_schema' (inspect current structure), nor any prerequisite like requiring an existing databaseId. Usage is only weakly implied by the phrase 'that have been applied'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.