Inspect index partitions on an Oracle table, returning index name, partition, status, leaf blocks, distinct keys, and row counts.
List partitions of indexes on a table: index name, partition, status, leaf blocks, distinct keys, num rows.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| table | Yes | Table name. | |
| schema | No | Schema (owner) of the object. Optional — defaults to the server's current schema; omit rather than guess. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.16.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation and it discloses the returned columns (index name, partition, status, leaf blocks, distinct keys, num rows), which is useful. However, it says nothing about permissions, behaviors on unpartitioned tables, or result volume.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste, naming the resource first and then the return fields.
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 read tool with no output schema, listing the returned columns is a valuable substitute. But with no annotations and no usage guidance, an agent still lacks enough context to confidently pick this over sibling list tools.
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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (table, schema) are well documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 (List) and resource (index partitions on a table), and enumerates the returned fields, making it distinct from table-level siblings like list_partitions. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative to differentiate in ambiguous cases, but the scope is clear.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus list_partitions, list_subpartitions, or list_indexes. No prerequisites, permissions, or mention of what happens on non-partitioned indexes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.