Retrieve private and public database synonyms with resolved target owner/name and optional DB link, filtered by schema or LIKE name pattern.
List private and public synonyms with their resolved target owner/name and optional DB link. Optional schema and LIKE name pattern.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| schema | No | Schema (owner) name. Omit to search all schemas. | |
| namePattern | No | LIKE pattern for the synonym name. Defaults to '%'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.16.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it helpfully discloses the shape of the return (resolved target owner/name plus DB link) and confirms the filters are optional. It does not state permission requirements, result-size limits, or whether the listing is scoped to the connected user, which for a dictionary-wide listing is a meaningful omission.
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?
Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its return content. Slightly duplicative in that the trailing parameter sentence restates scope already implied, but nothing is wasted.
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?
Only two optional parameters, no output schema, and no nested structures, so the description's coverage of resource, return fields, and optional filters is nearly sufficient. Missing only edge behavior (permissions, limits) to be fully self-contained.
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 both parameters are documented in-schema with defaults ('%') and omission semantics, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates 'optional schema and LIKE name pattern' and adds nothing about pattern syntax or case sensitivity, making the baseline 3 correct.
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 ('private and public synonyms') and adds the informative detail that results include the resolved target owner/name and DB link. It implicitly separates itself from the sibling create_synonym by being read-only, but never names an alternative or clarifies scope boundaries versus search_objects.
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?
The description implies use (browse synonyms) but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as search_objects or get_ddl for a single synonym. An agent gets no help deciding between this and the other list_* sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.