Retrieve MySQL server details and restrictions to identify database configuration and capacity limits.
Get MySQL server information and restrictions
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": "get_mysql_server_info"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what types of restrictions are covered, or any required permissions. The term 'restrictions' is vague and could benefit from elaboration.
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 a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is appropriately concise with no wasted words, though it is on the sparse side.
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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what information is returned or what 'restrictions' means. It does not, leaving gaps in the user's understanding of the tool's output and scope.
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, and the schema shows no properties. Per the rubric, the absence of parameters receives a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain parameter details because there are none.
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 identifies the tool as retrieving MySQL server information and restrictions, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_mysql_databases or get_server_info by focusing on the MySQL server itself, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with those alternatives.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus related tools such as get_server_info or other MySQL-specific tools. The description only states what it does, not the context or prerequisites for using it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.