mcp-hkex-filing

list_sinks

Read-onlyIdempotent

Discover configured database sinks and their capabilities, license, availability, and which sink serves reads for HKEX filing queries.

Instructions

Use this when the user asks which databases are configured or their capabilities.

Use get_server_info (with include="config") for the raw DATABASE_TARGET string or a one-line summary instead. Pass sink_id to inspect one sink without the full list. Returns every known sink id with its license, optional extra, configured/available status, per-sink capabilities, and which sink serves reads. Reads no filings. get_server_info with include="sinks" returns this same payload; call this tool directly when per-sink detail is all you need.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sink_id`	No	Narrow to one configured sink id, e.g. 'postgres'; empty returns all. Call with no argument to discover the valid ids.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv2.4.1Oct 2, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / sink_id / description

Previous value: -"Narrow to a single sink id, e.g. 'postgres'; empty returns all."New value: +"Narrow to one configured sink id, e.g. 'postgres'; empty returns all. Call with no argument to discover the valid ids."

Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.3Sep 24, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / sink_id

Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "description": "Narrow to a single sink id, e.g. 'postgres'; empty returns all.",
+  "title": "Sink Id",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedSep 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: it discloses the return contents (ids, license, optional extra, configured/available status, per-sink capabilities, read-serving sink) and explicitly states 'Reads no filings,' which is a meaningful scope constraint. It stops short of noting any cost or rate-limit behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition, and every sentence is on-topic. There is mild redundancy: get_server_info is invoked twice and the equivalence 'get_server_info with include="sinks" returns this same payload' restates the routing already implied, which adds length without new decision value.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Despite a single optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description stays complete: trigger, alternatives, narrowing path, and return-contents summary are all present. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing, and no return-value documentation is required given the output schema.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already explains sink_id (narrow to one configured sink id, empty returns all). The description reinforces the semantics contextually ('pass sink_id to inspect one sink without the full list'), tying the parameter to an intent rather than just a type, which is a modest but genuine addition over the baseline 3.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb+resource (list configured sinks/databases and their capabilities) and explicitly differentiates itself from the closest sibling, get_server_info, including the exact argument variant that would substitute for it. An agent can select this over siblings without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit when-to-use ('user asks which databases are configured or their capabilities') and when-not-to-use (use get_server_info with include='config' for the raw DATABASE_TARGET string, or include='sinks' for the same payload). It also names the sink_id path for narrowing to a single sink, covering all three invocation modes.

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

Deploy Server