antideploy-mcp

Official

by antideploy

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

The application's database

database_info

Read-only

Inspect the project's Postgres database state, size, tables, and masked connection string, confirming the platform-managed DATABASE_URL setup without external sign-up.

Instructions

Its state, size and tables, with the connection string masked. The platform creates a Postgres database and sets DATABASE_URL by itself when the project needs one, or earlier when database_create asks: do not send the user to sign up for another.

Tool call template

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": "database_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-open-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the masked connection string and explains that the platform provisions Postgres and sets DATABASE_URL automatically.

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?

The description is short and front-loads the returned information. The second sentence is relevant context about automatic provisioning, though the initial pronoun is somewhat vague without the title.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a zero-parameter read-only info tool with annotations covering safety, the description gives enough context to call it correctly and describes the main returned fields. It could be slightly more complete about what happens when no database exists or the exact response shape, but the core information is present.

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

Parameters4/5

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

This tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document and the baseline is 4.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description makes clear that this is the application's database info tool, returning state, size, tables, and a masked connection string. The resource is specific, though the opening pronoun "Its" relies on the title and there is no explicit inspect/retrieve verb.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is mostly implied by the returned fields. The description mentions `database_create` as the way to request earlier provisioning and warns against sending users to sign up elsewhere, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus other database-related siblings such as `database_env_to_file`.

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