@cocaxcode/database-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

conn_test

Test database connectivity by executing SELECT 1 and measuring latency. Provide a connection name to quickly verify availability and response time.

Instructions

Prueba la conexion a una base de datos. Ejecuta SELECT 1 y mide la latencia.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "conn_test"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Nombre de la conexion a probar

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.4Aug 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool executes a SELECT 1 and measures latency, which is good, but doesn't detail error behavior, timeouts, or whether it modifies state. For a simple read operation, this may be sufficient, but some behavioral context is missing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence, with no waste. It front-loads the action and includes the operational detail of executing SELECT 1 and measuring latency.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it doesn't mention what output to expect (e.g., latency value, success/failure) or edge cases. Given the simplicity and schema coverage, this is adequate.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines the parameter 'name' as the connection name. The description adds the action (test connection) but doesn't add extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: testing a database connection by executing SELECT 1 and measuring latency. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like conn_create, conn_set, etc.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies usage: when you need to verify connectivity and performance. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Given the sibling list, there are no similar testing tools, so it's clear enough.

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