Search Oracle database objects by case-insensitive LIKE name pattern and optionally filter by object type to locate tables, views, or similar objects.
Search database objects by a case-insensitive LIKE name pattern, optionally filtered by object type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Optional object type filter, e.g. 'TABLE', 'VIEW'. | |
| namePattern | Yes | LIKE pattern for the object name, e.g. 'EMP%' or '%ORDER%'. |
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 discloses that matching is case-insensitive and LIKE-based, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about schema scope, what object types are returned when 'type' is omitted, result limits, or whether anything can be mutated.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the matching semantics, with the optional filter trailing. Nothing is wasted and there is no filler.
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?
For a small two-parameter read tool with no output schema, most of what an agent needs is present. The gaps are the default scope when 'type' is omitted and which schemas are searched — modest but real omissions for a search over a catalog with the sibling breadth shown.
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%, so both parameters are already documented with examples. The description restates the LIKE pattern and the optional type filter without adding syntax, defaults, or edge-case behavior beyond the schema.
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?
Specific verb+resource: 'search database objects' with the matching mechanism (case-insensitive LIKE on name) spelled out. This distinguishes it from the many list_* siblings, which enumerate rather than pattern-match, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied by the mechanics — you use it when you have a partial name and want pattern matching instead of exhaustive listing. It never states when to prefer it over list_objects, list_tables, or table_exists, so the agent must infer the routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.