Validate a DBeaver PostgreSQL connection and exact database to confirm visible schemas, read-only status, server version, and access limits without exposing addresses or credentials.
验证一个DBeaver连接下的精确database、可见schemas、双重只读状态、服务端版本和硬限制；不返回地址或账密。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| database | Yes | 通过list_databases发现的精确PostgreSQL数据库名；不得猜测或传地址。 | |
| connection | Yes | DBeaver中已有PostgreSQL连接的显示名称或连接ID；不得传地址、账号或密码。 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description adds only the disclosure that address and credentials are not returned. That is useful because there is no output schema, but it is thin on behavioral context such as what 'dual read-only status' means or how hard limits are surfaced.
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?
A single, tightly packed sentence with the verb leading and the enumerated outputs following; the negative return clause is appended cleanly. No wasted words, though the density makes it slightly back-loaded.
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 read-only verification tool with no output schema, the description lists what is checked but does not describe the shape or format of the result, which matters when no output schema exists. Annotations cover the safety dimension, leaving this mostly adequate but with a real gap in return expectations.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both required parameters with sourcing and prohibition rules (no guessing, no address/credentials). The description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline.
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 gives a specific verb (验证/verify) and resource (a DBeaver connection) and enumerates the exact facets inspected: database, visible schemas, dual read-only status, server version, and hard limits. It also states a negative scope (no address/credentials returned). It does not name which sibling it complements, so it falls short of a 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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The only workflow hint is indirect, carried by the parameter descriptions ('通过list_databases发现的...'), not by the tool description itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.