Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
lu-query

lu-query

by zademy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_dependencies

Identify Oracle objects that a given object depends on for impact analysis. Filter by schema and object type.

Instructions

List objects that a given object depends on (referenced objects). Useful for impact analysis.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "list_dependencies"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesObject name.
typeNoOptional object type filter (e.g. 'VIEW', 'PROCEDURE').
schemaNoSchema (owner) of the object. Optional — defaults to the server's current schema; omit rather than guess.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.16.3

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully clarifies directionality (dependencies, not dependents), but does not state whether traversal is recursive/transitive, whether results are depth-limited, or the return shape. For a low-risk list tool this is adequate but not complete.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the purpose cue following. Nothing to trim.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Adequate for a simple three-parameter listing tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, but it omits recursion/depth behavior and the shape of returned rows, which an agent would want before trusting the result for impact analysis.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The schema already documents name, the optional type filter, and the schema-defaults guidance; the description adds nothing parameter-specific, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('List objects that a given object depends on') and pins down the direction as 'referenced objects', which disambiguates from the reverse 'who depends on me' reading. It does not name the closely related siblings get_dependency_graph or get_fk_graph, so differentiation is left to the agent.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'Useful for impact analysis' gives an implied context, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus get_dependency_graph or get_fk_graph, nor any stated exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer the routing.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools