DBJavaGenix

db_connect_test

Test database connectivity by specifying host, port, credentials, and database type to create a connection session.

Instructions

Test database connection and create connection session

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "host": "<host>",
      "port": "<port>",
      "username": "<username>",
      "password": "<password>",
      "database_type": "<database_type>"
    },
    "name": "db_connect_test"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`host`	Yes	Database host address
`port`	Yes	Database port number
`username`	Yes	Database username
`password`	Yes	Database password
`database`	No	Database name (optional for initial connection)
`database_type`	Yes	Database type
`charset`	No	Character encoding	utf8mb4

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1May 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description reveals that the tool creates a connection session, implying side effects. However, it does not clarify what happens on failure, whether the session persists, or if it's automatically cleaned up. This is adequate but lacks depth.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two actions in one sentence; very short and front-loaded. No unnecessary words. Could be slightly improved by separating test and create actions, but still concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no sibling differentiation in description, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose but omits return values, error handling, and lifecycle of the session.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the parameter names and types; e.g., it doesn't explain the role of 'database' as optional or the significance of 'charset'.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the tool tests a database connection and creates a session. This distinguishes it from siblings like db_query_execute (executes queries) and db_query_databases (lists databases).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus other database tools, such as when to test connection before querying. No mention of prerequisites or alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.