List all PostgreSQL users for your cPanel account to view and manage database access.
List all PostgreSQL users
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": "list_postgresql_users"
}
}| 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, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'List all' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but it does not explicitly state that it is safe, nor does it mention any authentication requirements or response format. It is accurate but does not add depth beyond the literal action.
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, front-loaded sentence containing exactly the necessary information with no redundancy or filler. It is optimally concise.
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 simple read-only listing tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It could optionally clarify the return format (e.g., an array of user names), but the verb 'list' implicitly communicates that the response will contain the list of users.
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 schema coverage is 100% and there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('PostgreSQL users'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_postgresql_databases and create_postgresql_user. It states exactly what the tool does with no ambiguity.
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 intended usage is implied by the name and description—use when you need to list PostgreSQL users—but there is no explicit mention of when to use it versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. It is not misleading, but guidance is minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.