List every database connection registered for your tenant: name, id, dbType (postgres / mysql / mssql), createdAt. Flags duplicate names — only the first-added connection of a duplicate name is reachable by name. Returns nothing sensitive (no DSN, no credentials).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| meta | No | ||
| display | No | ||
| summary | No | ||
| insights | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable disclosure: duplicate name handling (only the first-added is reachable by name) and a security guarantee (no DSN or credentials returned). This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's behavior and safety profile.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then two specific behavioral notes. No fluff, every sentence 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?
The description covers the tool's purpose, output fields, duplicate behavior, and security bounds. With an output schema also present, the agent has everything needed to use it correctly.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. It adds value by describing the output fields, which is relevant.
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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'database connection' and specifies the scope 'for your tenant' and the exact fields returned (name, id, dbType, createdAt). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_connection or test_connection.
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?
While the description doesn't name alternatives, it clearly implies the use case of inspecting registered connections. It provides context (every connection, no filtering) but doesn't explicitly exclude edge cases or mention when another tool would be more appropriate. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but not fully explicit.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource/action, though some overlap exists between analyze_table and data_profile (both profile tables) and between pii_scan and configure_allowlist (both deal with PII). Clear descriptions and separation of quick vs. full analysis mitigate confusion.
Most tools follow verb_noun (add_connection, describe_schema, generate_migration), but a notable minority use noun phrases (data_profile, pii_scan, query_firewall, saved_queries, quota, impact_analysis). This mixed convention creates inconsistency, though the naming is still readable.
26 tools is slightly over the 16-25 heavy threshold, but each tool addresses a distinct need across connection management, querying, analysis, security, and performance. While the count feels high, the breadth justifies it; however, it's approaching the 'too many' range.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle: connections (add/remove/list/test), querying (query_sql, saved_queries, cross_db_query), schema exploration/migration (describe_schema, generate_migration, impact_analysis), data quality/compliance (analyze_table, data_profile, pii_scan), performance (explain_query, optimize_query, show_locks), and monitoring (watch_table, detect_anomalies). Any gaps are minor, such as no update_connection, but that's not a core need.