Retrieve a list of all databases configured in your Metabase instance.
Get list of databases configured in Metabase
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_databases"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it returns a list, but does not disclose any behavioral details such as pagination, ordering, or whether it returns all databases. The description is minimally transparent for a simple read operation.
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 sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details about what the returned list contains. It does not mention fields or structure of the database objects, which would be helpful for a complete understanding.
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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 applies; no additional explanation is required.
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 'Get list of databases configured in Metabase' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (databases). The tool name matches, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like list_all_tables, list_database_schemas, etc. It is specific and unambiguous.
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 implies usage for retrieving the list of databases, but it does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It lacks alternatives or exclusions, which would help an agent decide between this and similar list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.