Enumerate partitions of an Oracle partitioned table, including names, positions, high values, row counts, compression, and last analyzed dates.
List partitions of a partitioned table: name, position, high value, row count, compression, last analyzed.
| 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. It usefully discloses the returned columns (name, position, high value, row count, compression, last analyzed), which is genuine output context, but says nothing about permissions, behavior on non-partitioned tables, or result limits.
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 that names the action, the target, and the returned fields with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.
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 and no annotations, the description partially compensates by enumerating the returned columns, and the two parameters are fully documented in the schema. It is only short of error/edge-case behavior for non-partitioned tables and sibling routing.
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% and the two parameters are documented in the schema, including the 'omit rather than guess' caveat for schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 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 (partitions of a partitioned table), and the qualifier 'of a partitioned table' scopes it away from index partitions. It does not, however, explicitly name its close siblings list_ind_partitions or list_subpartitions, so the agent must infer the boundary.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. With list_ind_partitions and list_subpartitions in the same family, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.