Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-multi-db

mcp-multi-db

by mahAnuj
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_tables

Lists tables and views in a configured PostgreSQL, MySQL, or SQLite database so AI agents can discover schema before querying.

Instructions

List tables and views in a configured database.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "database_id": "<database_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_tables"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
schemaNoSchema name (Postgres/MySQL). Ignored for SQLite.
database_idYesDatabase id from list_databases

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.1
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers little. It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it requires an active connection, whether results are paginated or filtered, or what the caller gets back.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Its brevity is a virtue structurally, though it borders on under-specification rather than tight conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read tool this should be easy to complete, but with no annotations and no output schema the description leaves the return shape, read-only nature, and preconditions entirely unstated. An agent must open other tools or guess to call this correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (schema, database_id) are already documented in the schema, including the SQLite-ignore note and the pointer to list_databases. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List tables and views' scoped to 'a configured database'. It is distinguishable from list_databases by the resource type, but the description never explicitly names or contrasts with its siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to call this before describe_table or run_query, and nothing excludes other tools. The only implicit signal is 'configured database', which hints that connection setup must precede it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools