Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
lu-query

lu-query

by zademy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_views

List views in an Oracle database, filtered by schema or case-insensitive name pattern, to inspect available views.

Instructions

List views. Optional schema and case-insensitive LIKE name pattern (defaults to '%').

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_views"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
schemaNoSchema (owner) name. Omit to search all schemas.
namePatternNoLIKE pattern for the view name. Defaults to '%'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.16.3

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the matching behavior (case-insensitive LIKE) and the wildcard default. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether results are paginated, or any privilege requirements, leaving real gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 tight sentences with the resource statement front-loaded and the filter semantics second; nothing is wasted. The phrasing is slightly telegraphic ("Optional schema and case-insensitive LIKE name pattern") but still parseable.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers what is needed to invoke it correctly. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned view list, which would have closed the last gap.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds one genuinely new detail beyond the schema — that namePattern matching is case-insensitive — but repeats the '%' default already documented in the schema, so the net added value is small.

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+resource ("List views") and immediately scopes it with the two available filters. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-siblings such as list_materialized_views or list_tables, so an agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage by explaining that both filters are optional and that the name pattern defaults to '%', which tells the agent a bare call lists everything. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing away from list_materialized_views or search_objects.

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