Creates a MySQL database with optional charset, collation, and IF NOT EXISTS handling, then can select it as the active database.
Crea una base de datos. Opcionalmente la selecciona como base actual.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| use | No | Seleccionarla como base de datos actual | |
| name | Yes | ||
| charset | No | utf8mb4 | |
| collation | No | utf8mb4_unicode_ci | |
| ifNotExists | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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. It reveals that the operation optionally selects the new database as current, which is useful, but it omits important behaviors: what happens if the database already exists (ifNotExists), required privileges, and whether creation is reversible. The disclosed behavior largely restates the schema description for the 'use' parameter.
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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and then an important optional behavior. There is no wasted wording, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a five-parameter tool.
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?
Given five parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is far too sparse. It does not cover error handling, default behaviors, permissions, or the roles of charset/collation/ifNotExists. An agent lacks enough context to invoke the tool correctly in edge cases.
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 only 20%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. Instead, it only mentions the optional selection behavior corresponding to the 'use' parameter, which the schema already documents, and says nothing about name, charset, collation, or ifNotExists. It adds no meaningful semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Crea una base de datos' (Creates a database). It also mentions the optional side effect of selecting the new database as current, which helps distinguish it from a pure creation tool. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings like drop_database or use_database.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, permissions, or conditions such as whether the database already exists. It only implies usage by stating the action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.