Retrieve Sitecore database information by name, or return all databases if no name is given.
Gets information about Sitecore databases.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| full | No | Return the unprojected .NET object graph. Very large (100,000+ chars/item); diagnostics only. | |
| name | No | The name of the database to retrieve (e.g. 'master', 'core', 'web'). If not provided, all databases will be returned. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true. The description says nothing about what information is returned, whether 'full' has performance implications (the schema hints at 100,000+ chars but the description never warns about it), or what happens when name is omitted (schema covers this, description does not). Given annotations carry only the safety bit, the description adds almost nothing.
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?
A single short sentence, front-loaded and with no filler. It is concise, though arguably too terse for the breadth of the common- tool family.
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?
With no annotations beyond readOnlyHint and no output schema, the description bears the burden of explaining what a 'database' object contains, whether name defaults to all databases (only in schema), and what 'full' returns. It covers none of this, leaving the agent to infer behavior entirely from parameter descriptions.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters are well documented within the schema itself (including the 'master'/'core'/'web' examples and the diagnostics warning for 'full'). Description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 clear verb+resource (get info about Sitecore databases), but provides no differentiation from the many other 'get' siblings in the common- family (e.g. common-get-cache, common-get-item-clone). An agent can't tell from the description whether this returns connection strings, size, status, or names.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to, or alternative guidance. With dozens of sibling get- tools, the absence of any routing information is a real gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.