Lists all tables and views in a MySQL database, with optional schema filtering and view inclusion for a selected connection.
Lista todas as tabelas e views
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| schemaName | No | Nome do schema para filtrar | |
| includeViews | No | Incluir views na listagem | |
| 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, yet it says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, scoping by connection, result size, or pagination. 'Lista todas' hints at an unbounded result set but that consequence is never made explicit.
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 wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to be maximally useful.
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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should do more. It omits the connection-scoping behavior (connectionName) and the view-inclusion toggle (includeViews), which materially affect what 'all tables' returns.
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 parameters (schemaName, includeViews, connectionName) are already documented in the schema with defaults. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, 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 clear verb and resource ('Lista todas as tabelas e views'), so the agent knows it enumerates tables and views. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings such as list_views, get_table_info, or get_table_structure, leaving some ambiguity about when this is the right enumeration call.
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 guidance is given. The description does not say when to prefer this over list_views, get_table_info, or get_table_structure, nor does it note any prerequisites such as needing a connection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.