Provision this workspace's own database (one per workspace). Returns the connection string and password ONCE — relay them to the user immediately; they cannot be retrieved later. Errors if the workspace already has a database. Use db.schema / db.query / db.execute to work with it afterwards.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| in_workspace | No | Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / in_workspaceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected.",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only convey the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false). The description adds substantially more: the return value contains a connection string and password revealed exactly ONCE and unrecoverable, plus the failure mode when a database already exists. That one-time-secret disclosure is critical behavioral context an agent could not get from the annotations.
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 sentences, each carrying distinct load: purpose, the irreversible credential handoff, and the error condition plus follow-up tools. The most urgent information (relay the password immediately) is surfaced rather than buried.
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 no-argument mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers everything needed: what is created, what comes back, that it cannot be re-fetched, when it fails, and which tools to use next. Nothing material is missing.
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?
There is a single optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema text itself explaining the workspace override and its non-persistent effect. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 for fully-documented schema is 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+resource ('Provision this workspace's own database') with an explicit cardinality constraint (one per workspace), which immediately separates it from the sibling read/write tools db_query, db_execute and db_schema. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.
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?
It gives a clear precondition ('Errors if the workspace already has a database') and routes the agent to the correct follow-up tools (db.schema / db.query / db.execute). What it lacks is an explicit when-to-use-vs-workspace_create or a 'use this only if you have not yet provisioned' framing, so the routing is strong but not exhaustive.
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.