Manage a database user on a site.
Actions: "create" (user+password), "drop" (user), "set_password" (user+password), "grants" (list a user's grants), "grant" / "revoke" (user+database, optional privileges e.g. "ALL" or "SELECT,INSERT").
Requires: API key with write scope.
Returns: {"engine", "action", "result": {...}}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | No | ||
| slug | Yes | ||
| user | No | ||
| action | Yes | ||
| engine | No | mysql | |
| database | No | ||
| password | No | ||
| privileges | No |
Does 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 the permission requirement (write scope) and the return shape, and lists actions including destructive 'drop'. However, it does not explicitly warn about irreversibility or side effects, and lacks detail on how actions affect the database.
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?
The description is well-structured: a lead sentence, a bulleted action list, a one-line requirement, and a return format. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or promotional language.
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 tool with eight parameters and multiple sub-actions, the description covers key behaviors, parameter mappings, return format, and permission needs. It lacks default values for host/engine and exact action enum formatting, but is sufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by mapping actions to parameters (e.g., create requires user+password; grant/revoke require user+database+privileges) and providing privilege examples. However, not all parameters (slug, host, engine) are explained, leaving some ambiguity.
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?
The description clearly specifies the tool manages a database user and enumerates concrete actions (create, drop, set_password, grants, grant, revoke). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_db_users (read-only listing) and execute_query (SQL queries).
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 lists actions and parameter requirements, implying when to use the tool (for database user management). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use list_db_users for listing users' or 'use execute_query for raw SQL'. The write-scope requirement is stated, but alternative guidance is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools have overlapping boundaries, such as add_domain_dns vs manage_dns for DNS records, create_backup vs create_snapshot vs create_b2_snapshot for saved states, and write_file vs upload_file for file writing. Most tools are distinct, but these near-duplicates require agents to read descriptions carefully to avoid misselection.
The naming pattern is mostly consistent verb_noun in snake_case (e.g., list_* , create_*, delete_*), but there are noticeable deviations: 'add' vs 'create' for similar operations, 'delete' vs 'remove', and outliers like manage_dns, whoami, and scale. The overall style is readable but not perfectly uniform.
144 tools is far beyond the 'too many' threshold and would be unwieldy for agents to navigate. While the server covers a broad hosting platform with many distinct resources, the sheer number makes it difficult for each tool to earn its place, and many are simple list/get variants that could be consolidated.
The tool surface is remarkably comprehensive, covering site lifecycle, domains/DNS, compute instances/volumes, backups/snapshots, file management, databases, WordPress administration, email, security, monitoring, billing, webhooks, and support. A notable gap is the lack of a direct list_sites tool—agents must infer site slugs from list_subscriptions—but overall the domain is well covered.
