mcp-1panel-plus

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Create MySQL Database

create_database

Create a UTF8MB4 database in a local MySQL instance on a selected 1Panel node and set client access and user credentials without exposing passwords.

Instructions

Create a UTF8MB4 database in a local MySQL instance on the selected node. Access defaults to localhost; passwords are never echoed back.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "database": "<database>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_database"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	New schema/database name.
`nodeId`	No	Target node ID: "local" for the Main Node, or a numeric string ID (e.g. "3") from list_nodes.	local
`database`	Yes	Local MySQL instance name.
`password`	No	Database user password (never returned).
`username`	No	Database user name.
`permission`	No	Allowed client host (defaults to "localhost", or "%" / specific IP).	localhost

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation and network profile is known. The description adds two genuinely useful facts beyond that: the UTF8MB4 charset and that passwords are never echoed back. However, it omits whether creation fails when the name already exists, and whether supplying username/password provisions a MySQL user as a side effect.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the security note trailing; every clause carries information (charset, instance type, node scoping, access default, password handling) with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what gets created and where. It stops short of describing collision behavior, credential side effects, and what is returned on success, which an agent would want before invoking it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters, including the nodeId pattern and the permission default. The description only restates the localhost access default and reinforces that passwords are not returned; it adds no format or interaction detail 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.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a UTF8MB4 database') plus scope ('in a local MySQL instance on the selected node'), so an agent knows exactly what will be produced. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings such as list_databases or list_postgresql_databases, leaving a small differentiation gap.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the description's framing (provisioning a MySQL schema on a chosen node), but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. a MySQL instance must already exist), and no reference to alternatives for PostgreSQL or listing existing databases.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.