Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
lu-query

lu-query

by zademy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_locks

List all DML, transaction, and user locks held or requested on an Oracle database, including object names and decoded lock modes.

Instructions

List DML/transaction/user locks held and requested, with the locked object name and lock mode (decoded).

Tool call template

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_locks"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.16.3

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that output includes the locked object name and a decoded lock mode, and that both held and requested locks are covered, but it says nothing about permissions required, row limits, or whether the read is expensive.

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?

A single tightly-written sentence with the resource front-loaded and the output contents trailing. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the returned rows describe (object name, lock mode, held vs requested). A brief note on required privileges or result size would close the remaining gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter surface for the description to clarify or for the schema to document.

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 (List) and resource (locks), then narrows scope to DML/transaction/user locks and clarifies it covers both held and requested locks. An agent can tell exactly what this tool surfaces without consulting 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 Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of related siblings such as list_blocked_sessions or list_active_sessions. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is a diagnostic listing tool.

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