List all configured SQL connections with their connection IDs for quick reference.
List configured SQL connections by connection_id.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_connections"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0v0.1.2v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('List') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the list is exhaustive. The simplicity of the tool partially compensates for the lack of detail.
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 superfluous words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks details about the output format or what constitutes a 'configured SQL connection'. It is adequate but could be slightly enhanced.
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 input schema has no parameters and 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema is self-sufficient.
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 'List configured SQL connections by connection_id.' specifying the verb and resource. However, mentioning 'by connection_id' is slightly misleading as there are no input parameters; it might imply filtering. Still, it distinguishes itself from sibling list tools like list_databases and 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_databases or list_schemas. The description does not mention prerequisites or context for listing connections.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.