Check if the database connection is active and healthy, returning database type, ping time, table list, and permission mode. Use after inactivity or failures to confirm availability.
查看当前数据库连接的状态，返回是否已连接、数据库类型、ping 健康度（实测耗时）、表信息列表以及权限模式。LLM 在长时间未操作后或捕获到执行失败时可调用此工具确认连接可用性。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does deliver: it discloses that the tool performs a live ping with a measured latency and reports permission mode, which are behavioral traits not derivable elsewhere. It stops short of stating that the call is strictly read-only/non-mutating or whether it has side effects.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by usage guidance; every clause earns its place by describing returned fields or the trigger condition. The return-field enumeration is somewhat dense but directly substitutes for the absent output schema.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description must cover both behavior and return shape, and it does: it lists all result fields and the diagnostic purpose. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and interpret the result.
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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to compensate for and it introduces no misleading parameter expectations.
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?
Starts with a specific verb+resource ('查看当前数据库连接的状态') and enumerates exactly what the result contains: connection boolean, database type, ping health with measured latency, table list, and permission mode. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like connect, disconnect, query, or list_tables.
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?
Explicitly states the two trigger conditions: after a long period of inactivity, or when an execution failure is captured. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the conditional guidance is concrete and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.