Lists all user (non-system) tables in a specified Firebird database or active session, prompting for a database if none is active, to inspect schema objects before querying.
Lista todas as tabelas de usuário (não de sistema) do banco especificado (ou ativo na sessão). Se houver múltiplos bancos no projeto e nenhum estiver ativo na sessão, pergunte antes ao usuário.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| db_alias | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real behavioral rule (filter out system tables, and prompt the user instead of guessing when the target database is ambiguous), which is useful. However, it says nothing about output shape, ordering, pagination, or whether a live connection is required, leaving notable gaps for an annotation-free tool.
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?
Two short sentences, correctly front-loaded with the core operation followed by the ambiguity-handling rule. No filler or repetition of schema content.
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 one-optional-parameter listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it returns, the scoping rule, the session fallback, and the ambiguity prompt. Only the return format and how to obtain a valid db_alias remain unstated, which is a minor gap.
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 0% for the single optional db_alias parameter. The description partly compensates by explaining the semantics: it names the database or falls back to the session-active one. It does not say what form an alias takes or that it comes from fb_list_databases, so the compensation is only partial.
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 and resource (list user tables) plus an explicit scope qualifier that excludes system tables, which immediately separates it from sibling listing tools like fb_list_views, fb_list_procedures, and fb_list_generators. An agent can tell exactly what this returns without opening the schema.
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?
Gives a clear conditional rule: when multiple databases exist and none is session-active, ask the user before proceeding. It encodes the fallback (use whatever database is active in the session) rather than naming rival tools, so the 'when' is covered but no explicit alternative/instead-of routing is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.