openbao_database_connections_listList managed database connections for a cluster, optionally within a namespace, to inspect available database endpoints and their configuration.
List managed database connections
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cluster | Yes | ||
| namespace | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on scoping behavior, pagination, result volume, or what happens if the cluster has no connections.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is structurally sound, but the brevity is under-specification rather than discipline — the same word count could have carried the cluster/namespace scoping.
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 list tool with a required cluster selector, an optional namespace filter, and no output schema, the definition should say what a required cluster means and roughly what is returned. None of that is present, so the description is not complete enough to invoke confidently without inspecting the schema.
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 0%: the required "cluster" parameter has only a regex/max-length constraint and no prose, and the description supplies no meaning for either cluster scoping or the optional namespace filter. With two parameters and no compensating explanation, the description leaves the agent to guess what "cluster" identifies.
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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of prerequisites, no exclusions, and no pointer to openbao_database_connection_get for fetching a single connection. An agent must 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.