Browse and search a site's database collections, returning table names and field counts so you can find data sources before requesting full schema details.
List all database collections (tables) for the site. Returns collection names, table names, and field counts. Use get_collection for full schema details
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number | |
| term | No | Search by collection name | |
| limit | No | Items per page |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.31.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the rest. It usefully discloses the return payload (collection names, table names, field counts), telling the agent not to expect full schema. It does not explain pagination behavior despite page/limit parameters, and 'List all' is in mild tension with a paginated endpoint.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return contents, then the routing hint last. No filler or restated naming.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the returned fields, and with annotations covering the read-only nature and 100% schema coverage on parameters, most agent needs are met. The remaining gap is pagination/default-limit behavior for a tool whose schema exposes page and limit.
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% — page, term, and limit are each documented in the schema itself — so the baseline 3 applies. The description adds nothing about search-by-name or pagination semantics beyond what the schema already states.
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 and resource ('List all database collections (tables) for the site') and immediately disambiguates from the sibling get_collection, which returns full schema. An agent can distinguish it from get_collection, create_collection, and query_collection_records without opening a schema.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use get_collection for full schema details,' which implies this tool is for lightweight name/field-count discovery. It stops short of spelling out the inverse condition (e.g., when to prefer this over query_collection_records or list_pages), so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not matrix.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.