Retrieve a MySQL database's configuration by its provisioned name to manage Combell hosting resources.
Get a MySQL database by its (provisioned) name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| database_name | Yes | The provisioned database name, e.g. 'ID123456_shop' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'provisioned' naming detail, which is useful, but does not disclose anything else like error behavior or return format. With annotations covering the main traits, the description adds modest value.
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?
A single sentence with no filler. The key information (verb, resource, parameter) is front-loaded and immediately clear. Every word earns its place; it is appropriately minimal for such a simple read operation.
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 (one parameter, no output schema, annotations covering safety), the description is nearly sufficient. It clearly indicates the operation and the required input. It could mention that the return value is the database details, but that is implicit for a get operation. The lack of response description is a minor gap, not a critical one.
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 already documents the parameter with a clear description including an example. The tool description repeats the 'provisioned' wording but adds no new meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not compensate or enrich beyond the schema.
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 (Get) and resource (MySQL database) with the key parameter (provisioned name). It distinguishes from list and create/delete siblings by implying single-item retrieval, but does not explicitly name the alternative tools. The 'provisioned' qualifier adds useful specificity.
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 given on when to use this tool versus the list or other database tools. It does not mention that the database name must be known beforehand, or that list should be used to discover names. The description provides no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.