Lists all MySQL databases stored within a specified backup, or the current backup if no ID is provided. Use it to inspect backup contents without restoring.
Базы данных внутри резервной копии.
Args: backup_id: ID бэкапа (не указан = текущая копия)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| backup_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds one behavioral detail beyond annotations: omitting backup_id defaults to the current backup. However, it does not describe authentication needs, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits.
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 very short and front-loads the resource, followed by a compact Args block. Every part serves a purpose, though the 'Args:' formatting is slightly verbose for a single parameter. There is no wasted text.
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 simple list operation, one parameter, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential information: what is returned (databases inside a backup) and the parameter default. It omits explicit usage guidance relative to siblings, but that is the only notable gap for an otherwise complete definition.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter. It does by explaining that backup_id is the backup ID and that omitting it uses the current backup, adding meaning beyond the schema's type and default null. The explanation is complete for this simple parameter.
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 states the resource clearly: 'Базы данных внутри резервной копии' (Databases inside a backup). This tells the agent what the tool returns, but it is a noun phrase lacking an explicit verb and does not differentiate from sibling tools like backup_mysql_list or backup_files_list, which might be confused with it.
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?
The description only mentions a parameter default: 'backup_id: ID бэкапа (не указан = текущая копия)'. It provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as backup_mysql_list, backup_files_list, or backup_restore_mysql. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.