List all configured database connections and identify which one is currently active.
Lista todas las conexiones disponibles e indica cual esta activa.
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": "conn_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool lists connections and indicates the active one, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly disclose side effects, permissions, or any other behavioral traits. The behavior is straightforward but not fully transparent.
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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded, making it easily scannable for an agent.
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?
For a simple list tool, the description provides adequate information about the primary function (listing connections and indicating the active one). However, it lacks details about the return format (e.g., whether it returns IDs, names, or other metadata), and there is no output schema to compensate. Still, it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward listing tool.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameter semantics to explain beyond what the schema already shows.
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 defines the tool's function with a specific verb ('Lista' = lists) and resource ('conexiones disponibles'), and adds a unique outcome ('indica cual esta activa'). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like conn_get, conn_create, or conn_set.
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 implies usage context (to see all connections and identify the active one) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so it falls into 'implied usage' rather than clear guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.