Read database configuration settings for an existing PostgreSQL connection and chosen database in place of SHOW or SHOW ALL, returning requested values while masking sensitive entries.
读取当前账号可见的数据库配置，替代SHOW/SHOW ALL；敏感配置值脱敏。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| names | No | ||
| 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 cover read-only, idempotent and non-destructive semantics, and the description adds genuinely new context: results are scoped to the current account's visibility and sensitive config values are masked (脱敏). It does not, however, describe output shape or any permission requirements beyond account scope.
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 compressed sentence front-loads the action, scope, replacement semantics and the masking guarantee. Nothing is wasted, though the density leaves the 'names' filter unexplained.
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 3-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool is and its safety-relevant behavior, but omits what the returned settings look like and the purpose of 'names'. Adequate but leaves clear gaps.
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 67%: database and connection carry explicit constraints (must come from list_databases / DBeaver connection list, no addresses or credentials), while 'names' is undocumented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so it neither compensates for nor extends the schema.
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?
States a specific verb+resource (read database configuration) and narrows scope with 'visible to the current account'. The 'replaces SHOW/SHOW ALL' clause helpfully distinguishes it from raw-query siblings like execute_query, though no sibling tool is named directly.
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?
'替代SHOW/SHOW ALL' gives an implied when-to-use signal by routing agents away from running SHOW manually via execute_query. However, it offers no explicit when-not or named alternative among the large sibling set (scan_database, search_catalog, etc.).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.