Opens or reuses a PostgreSQL connection pool, tests connectivity, and returns database, user, version, and latency for validation.
Abre (ou reaproveita) o pool da conexão e testa: retorna banco, usuário, versão e latência.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| connection | No | Nome ou alias da conexão (veja list_connections). Se omitido, usa a conexão ativa ou a padrão. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing that the pool is opened or reused (so repeat calls are cheap/idempotent) and that a connectivity test with latency is performed. It also names the returned fields. Minor gap: it does not mention what happens on failure (error vs. partial result) or that pool creation has a server-side cost.
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?
One dense sentence with the action front-loaded and the observable result trailing. No filler, though the description is written in Portuguese while the tool names and siblings are English, which is a minor consistency friction for matching.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the sole parameter is fully covered by the schema. What is missing is sibling routing (use_connection / close_connection) and error behavior, which matter for a connection-lifecycle tool in a crowded family.
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 100% and the single optional 'connection' parameter already documents the alias and default fallback behavior. The description adds nothing further about the parameter, so the schema-baseline of 3 applies.
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 and resource: opens/reuses the connection pool and tests it, returning database, user, version and latency. It does not distinguish itself from close_connection or use_connection, so an agent must infer the boundary, but the action itself is unambiguous.
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?
No guidance on when to call this versus use_connection or list_connections, and no prerequisites (e.g., must a connection exist first, or does omission fall back to the default?). The only routing hint, 'veja list_connections', lives in the schema property description, not the tool description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.