Create a new database on an ISPConfig hosting platform by specifying client ID, server, parent domain, type, and database name. Resolve database provisioning needs directly through the MCP server.
Create a new database
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes | Database params (server_id, parent_domain_id, type, database_name, etc.) | |
| client_id | Yes | Client ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new database' only states the action, without mentioning potential side effects, required server, failure conditions, or whether the operation is reversible. This is minimal behavioral information.
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 extremely concise, using a single sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core action, but the brevity edges into under-specification, though it remains appropriate for the small amount of information it conveys.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits context about required fields, the meaning of the nested params object, return values, and error/edge-case behavior. The schema partially compensates, but the description itself does not provide enough situational context.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The schema already describes client_id and lists example params fields; the tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics. The schema's examples provide some clarity, but the description contributes nothing beyond that.
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 says 'Create a new database' with a specific verb and resource, clearly identifying the tool's purpose. It is distinct from sibling tools like database_list and database_delete, and there is no ambiguity about what operation it performs.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as database_list or database_delete. It lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.