Lists MongoDB user accounts associated with this hosting account, showing additional users beyond the default. Use it to review or verify database access.
List additional MongoDB users on this account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only 'list' operation but says nothing about what 'additional' means, whether output is paginated, or any authentication/permission requirements. The behavioral scope remains unclear.
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 with no filler. It could be slightly improved with a clarifying phrase about 'additional' users, so it does not receive a 5.
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 zero-parameter list operation, the description is minimal but adequate. However, the unexplained qualifier 'additional' leaves the user wondering what subset is being listed, and the absence of any output format or return-value indication creates a minor gap.
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 accepts zero parameters, and the schema coverage is at 100% (since there are no properties). The description correctly does not attempt to explain nonexistent parameters. Baseline of 4 for parameterless tools is appropriate.
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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('MongoDB users on this account'), which clearly distinguishes it from MySQL, PostgreSQL, or MSSQL user-listing siblings. However, the word 'additional' is undefined and slightly ambiguous, preventing a perfect 5.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus other user-list tools (e.g., ecp_mysql_list_db_users, ecp_mssql_list_db_users) or Mongo-specific user tools like ecp_mongo_create_user. The intended context is implied only by the name, not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.