Lists all configured database connections from sqlglass.toml, showing the query library location and whether each connection has a cached schema.
List the configured database connections (from sqlglass.toml), which is the default, where the query library lives, and whether each connection has a cached schema.
| 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?
Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral detail: connections come from sqlglass.toml, the default config also holds the query library location, and the result reports cached-schema presence per connection.
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 compact and single-sentence, front-loading the main purpose. The phrasing 'which is the default, where the query library lives' is slightly awkward, but still packs relevant detail into a small space.
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, read-only listing tool, the description is sufficiently complete. It names the source, the default config relationship, the query library location, and the cached-schema status included in results, which is enough given the tool's simplicity.
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 has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage of an empty schema, so there is little to explain. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, this is handled well; the description confirms the tool requires no configuration arguments.
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 clearly identifies the action ('List') and the resource ('configured database connections'), and adds specificity about the source file and output details. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by focusing on connection configuration rather than tables, snapshots, or queries.
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?
Usage context is implied: an agent would call this to inspect configured database connections and their cached-schema status. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when not to use it, and no naming of alternative tools for related needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.