Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
lu-query

lu-query

by zademy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_mview_logs

List materialized view logs defined on Oracle tables to inspect refresh and change tracking, optionally filtered by schema.

Instructions

List materialized view logs defined on tables. Optional schema.

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_mview_logs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
schemaNoSchema (owner) name. Omit to search all schemas.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.16.3

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses almost nothing: it never states this is a read-only/safe operation, what fields are returned, ordering, or any privilege requirements. For an Oracle catalog-listing tool, this leaves meaningful gaps.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than crisp completeness.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, given zero annotation coverage, it should say more about the read-only nature and what the listing yields.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Schema (owner) name. Omit to search all schemas.'). The description's 'Optional schema' adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 materialized view logs), which is discernible from siblings like list_materialized_views and create_mview_log. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, but the resource is precise enough to route correctly.

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?

The description offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives such as list_materialized_views or create_mview_log. 'Optional schema' is the only usage hint and is a restatement of the parameter's optionality.

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