Create a new MySQL database in cPanel with the specified name; the system automatically prefixes it with your cPanel username.
Create a new MySQL database
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Database name (will be prefixed with cPanel username) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It omits prerequisites, potential side effects, naming constraints (e.g., the cPanel username prefix mentioned in the schema), and failure behavior. The description only states the action without additional context, which is insufficient for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter and simple purpose.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, required permissions, or the naming prefix behavior that the schema mentions. A simple creation tool still benefits from this context for safe and correct invocation.
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% for the single parameter 'name', and the schema description itself adds important meaning (the username prefix). The tool description adds no parameter-specific details, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the action (create) and the resource (MySQL database), distinguishing it from siblings like create_postgresql_database and create_mysql_user. Even without additional context, the verb and resource are specific and 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_postgresql_database or create_mysql_user. The description simply repeats the tool's name without contextual pointers or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.