Create a new PostgreSQL database in cPanel by providing a database name, enabling AI assistants to automate database setup for applications and projects.
Create a new PostgreSQL database
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Database name |
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 disclosing behavior. It only states the action 'create a new PostgreSQL database' without explaining side effects, requirements such as uniqueness or naming constraints, or what happens on failure. This lack of detail leaves the agent unaware of potential error conditions.
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, direct sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded and concise, perfectly sized for the simple operation it describes.
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?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), so a minimal description might suffice. However, it lacks context about naming rules, potential conflicts, or return values, which are clear gaps for a creation operation without annotations. It meets the minimum viability but leaves room for more helpful context.
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%: the only parameter 'name' is described as 'Database name'. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, but since the schema is sufficient for a single simple parameter, the baseline 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 verb 'create' and the resource 'PostgreSQL database', making the tool's function unambiguous. It also distinguishes from siblings like create_mysql_database and create_postgresql_user by specifying the exact database engine and object type.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_mysql_database), nor any prerequisites or conditions. The context is only implied by the tool name and resource type.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.