Lists Oracle Forms components such as blocks, items, triggers, and program units by path, with optional kind filtering and pagination. Use it to inspect export structure before migration.
List blocks/items/triggers/program units etc. Use exact kind, e.g. Trigger or Item; blank means all.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered, but the description adds no behavioral context of its own: it does not say whether results are paginated (limit defaults to 100), what order they come in, or how deep the listing goes. With annotations carrying the full safety profile, the description contributes almost nothing beyond the safety story.
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, front-loaded with what is listed before the argument hint. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness edges toward under-specification rather than efficient density.
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?
A four-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema needs the description to explain the required path, the component kinds, and pagination behavior. The description leaves the required parameter and the return shape entirely unexplained.
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%, so the description must compensate, and it only covers 'kind' (with example values Trigger/Item and the blank-means-all default). The required 'path' parameter is never explained, and limit/offset pagination semantics are left completely undocumented.
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?
The verb 'List' plus the enumeration 'blocks/items/triggers/program units' conveys the resource, but the umbrella term 'components' is never defined and the description does not distinguish this tool from siblings like list_forms or inspect_database_objects, which plausibly overlap.
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 only guidance is about the 'kind' argument ('Use exact kind... blank means all'), which is parameter syntax, not when-to-use. There is no statement of when to pick this tool over list_forms or inspect_database_objects, and no prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.