Lists stored procedures and functions in a MySQL database. Filter by schema or routine type to inspect available routines for administration and monitoring.
Lista procedures e functions
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| schemaName | No | Nome do schema para filtrar | |
| routineType | No | Tipo de rotina (PROCEDURE ou FUNCTION) | |
| connectionName | No | Nome da conexão para usar |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no indication that this is a read-only operation, no permissions or connection requirements, no note on ordering or result volume. Only the implied read semantics of 'Lista' hints at safety.
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 single phrase is front-loaded and free of waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise — there is no structure to speak of and nothing beyond the minimal verb+object.
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 tool with three filter parameters, no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it never says what is returned (names only? definitions? metadata?) or how results relate to the schema/connection filters. The schema covers the inputs, but the description leaves the overall behavior opaque.
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 100%, so all three optional filters (schemaName, routineType, connectionName) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no filtering or format detail beyond that, so the 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 verb ('Lista') and a resource, and usefully expands 'routines' into 'procedures e functions', which the tool name alone does not convey. However it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings such as list_views, list_tables or list_schemas, and gives no sense of scope.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance of any kind. An agent must guess that this is the routine-listing counterpart to list_views/list_tables purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.