Retrieve all user-defined schemas from a read-only PostgreSQL database for staging, test, or prod environments to explore database structure before querying tables.
List all user-defined schemas in the database
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| env | Yes | Environment (staging, test, prod) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation and 'user-defined' scopes the result set, but there is no mention of permissions, output shape, or rate 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 no wasted words. The scope qualifier 'user-defined' is placed where it matters.
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-parameter listing tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema required, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is that sibling differentiation is absent.
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% and the single env parameter has a documented enum, so the schema fully carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 (List) and resource (user-defined schemas in the database), which is clear and unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like list-tables or list-environments, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list-tables, describe-table, or list-environments. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.