Retrieve all available MySQL views, optionally filtered by schema or connection, to inspect database structure for monitoring and administration.
Lista todas as views disponíveis
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| schemaName | No | Nome do schema para filtrar | |
| 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 burden. 'Lista' implies a safe read, but it says nothing about whether results are filtered by connection, whether it hits the network, or what the response shape is.
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 zero waste. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the tool's filtering capabilities.
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 simple no-annotation read-only list with a fully documented 2-param schema and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. It omits any mention of the filtering capability, which is the tool's only real behavioral nuance.
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 both optional parameters (schemaName, connectionName) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning, which is acceptable per the baseline rule.
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 ('Lista') and resource ('views'), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. However, it offers no differentiation from sibling list tools such as list_tables or list_schemas, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other list_* siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only weakly implied by the verb itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.