list_tablesLists tables and views with kind, approximate row count, total size and comment to help you explore schemas and assess data volume before writing queries.
Lists tables and views with their kind, approximate row count, total size and comment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| schema | No | Only this schema (must be one of the allowed schemas) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tables | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that row counts are approximate and that views are included, which is useful beyond the annotations, but says nothing about default schema scope or result size limits.
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 filler, and the returned fields are enumerated compactly. Nothing to trim and nothing buried.
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 an output schema present and rich annotations, the description only needs to establish scope and purpose, which it does. It stops short of noting the default behavior when no schema is supplied, a small gap for a list tool.
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?
The single `schema` parameter has 100% schema description coverage, so the schema does the heavy lifting per baseline. The description does not mention the filter at all, notably omitting that omitting it presumably lists all allowed schemas, so it adds nothing over the structured field.
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?
Specific verb 'Lists' with the resource ('tables and views') plus the exact fields returned (kind, approximate row count, size, comment), so an agent knows this is the overview/inventory tool. It does not explicitly name describe_table or run_query as the more detailed alternatives, which keeps it just 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied rather than stated: returning lightweight metadata for all tables suggests a discovery step before describe_table or run_query, but the description never says when to prefer it over those siblings. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.