Lists all tables in a MySQL database. Specify an optional database name to query without changing the active connection.
List all tables in the active database
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| database | No | Optional database to read from for this call only, without changing the active connection |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'active database' scope but does not disclose the return format, potential errors, or any pagination/limits. It neither contradicts annotations nor adds significant behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose with zero fluff. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly efficient.
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 list operation with one optional parameter and strong annotations, the description is mostly complete. It could benefit from specifying the output format (e.g., returns a list of table names), but the name and scope largely imply this. The optional parameter is documented in the schema, so its omission from the description is acceptable.
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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single optional parameter 'database' with a clear description. The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, so it adds no additional meaning. With full schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is 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?
The description clearly states the action (list), the resource (tables), and the scope (active database). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like describe_table or get_table_indexes, which target individual tables.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention the optional database parameter that could be used to override the active connection. It implies usage for the active database but does not explain scenarios where a different database might be needed or when to use list_databases/use_database instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.